History of Opinion Among Calvinists upon the Question as to the Design of the Atonement
I propose now to give a very brief and general sketch of the history of opinion upon this subject, preparatory to a more particular inquiry as to the opinions of Calvin, and the general consensus and authoritative standard of doctrine among the Reformed Churches.
Let the fact, already carefully noticed, be remembered that all parties agree — (1.) That the Scriptures use general and indefinite terms when speaking of the design of Christ’s death, as well as personal and definite ones. John said “that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world,” 1 John iv. 14; and Christ said, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” John x. 15. (2.) That Christ died with the design as well as effect of securing many benefits, short of salvation, for the non-elect as well as for the elect. (3.) That since his work is sufficient for all, exactly adapted to the needs of each, and offered indiscriminately to all, it follows — (a.) That all the legal obstacles in God’s way of saving any are removed, and hence the salvation of all is now legally possible, a parte Dei. (b.) That in a strictly objective sense the Atonement is as freely available, on the condition of faith, to the gospel-hearing non-elect as it is to the elect. (4.) Hence it follows that if we look down the line of purpose and causation from God toward mankind, it is plain that Christ could have had no other purpose in dying than to save those whom he actually does save. But if we look upwards from the position of the sinner, to whom the universal offer of a personal interest in the Atonement of Christ is brought, it is evident that Christ did so die for the sins of the whole world that if any man hears the offer and is willing to accept it, a free and perfect Atonement is his for the taking. Hence it follows, that in all ages many of the most rigid predestinarians have said, in the words of Calvin himself, “Passus est Christm pro peccatis totius mundi” while it has been only very superficial critics who have inferred therefrom that these men intended to decide against the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, which is that Christ designed in his death to secure the salvation of his elect, and of none others. The phrase that Christ died for the whole world may be taken in three senses: (a.) That he died for Jews as well as Gentiles, for a people elect out of all nations and generations. (6.) That he died to secure many advantages for all men from Adam to the last generation, especially for all citizens in Christian lands. (c.) That he died to secure the salvation of each and every man that ever lived; that is, that he died in the same sense for the non-elect as for the elect. The first two we affirm; the latter we deny. And we maintain that the meaning intended by men in the use of general expressions, like that above quoted from Calvin, can be determined only by means of a comparison of all their expressed opinions on the subject.
All Arians, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Socinians and
/:Vrmin;ans, have in perfect consistency with their several systems, maintained the general and indefinite reference of the Atonement, while, on the other hand, as was to be expected, all true Augustinians and Calvinists have necessarily held that Christ died definitely and personally for the elect. Jenkyn claims that Bishop Davenant has triumphantly proved that the great Augustine himself, “the masterly champion of predestina,- tion against Pelagius,” was an advocate of an indefinite Atonement. But Wiggers, one of the most capable and impartial witnesses that even Germany has produced in this century, in his “Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism,“* says: “As by the predestination theory, only a definite number of elect would obtain salvation, Christ’s redemption could extend only
to those whom God had destined to salvation
According to Augustine, therefore, redemption was not universal. God sent his Son into the world, not to redeem the whole sinful race ol men, but only the elect. Augustine says: “By this Mediator God showed that those whom he redeemed by his blood he makes from being evil to be eternally good.”f “Every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ is a man, though not every one that is a man has been redeemed by the blood of Christ.”J “No one perishes of those for whom Christ died.”§ Sometimes Augustine uses indefinite language after the familiar example of Scripture, but no inference, drawn from that fact, can for one moment withstand the force of such clear and precise statements of his opinion as those given above by Wiggers.
* Pages 254 and 255. J Book on Adulterous Marriages, c. 15- f De Cor. et Or. 11. Ibid., 169, c. 1.
Those of the Schoolmen who followed Augustine were in the habit of saying that Christ died for all men, but in a sense very different from that in which he died for his elect. Their formula was “Christus passus est suff,- eienter pro omnibus, efficienter pro electis” This we regard as a statement inaccurate in terms, and more likely to confuse than to clear the question, yet as very near the truth, and very different from the positively false position of those who hold that Christ died indifferently for each and every man.
At the time of the Reformation the attention of the great Reformers was absorbed by questions fundamental to the very life of the Church, and they were thence precluded from the deliberate consideration of secondary matters involved rather in the symmetry and perfection than in the integrity of the evangelical system. Zwingle and Calvin, the founders of the Reformed Churches, while they never made the question as to the design of the Atonement a subject of special study, nevertheless habitually taught, through the spirit and form of their entire system, that redemption was subordinate as a means to an end to the eternal decree of election, and therefore, of course, had the same objects and the same end. The same characteristics mark also the earlier Reformed Confessions — redemption is habitually subordinated to election; but no explicit deliverance is given us to the design of the Atonement. In all the later Reformed Confessions, however — viz., in the Gallic (A. D. 1576) and Belgic (A. D. 1571) Confessions, the Canons of the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1618, 1619), the Canons of the French Synods of Alez (A. D. 1620) and of Charenton (A. D. 1623), the Westminster Confession (A. D. 1648), the Formula Consensus Helvetica (A. D 1675), the Savoy Confession (A. D. 1658), and the Boston Confession (A. D. 1680) — all explicitly taught the definite and personal design of the vicarious work of Christ.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there appeared two prominent attempts to engraft the notion of a general redemption upon the Calvinistic system by those who retained nevertheless orthodox views as to the nature of the Atonement.
1. The first of these was the product of the speculations of Cameron and of his pupils Amyraldus and Testardus, in connection with the theological school of Saumur, France, during the first half of the seventeenth century. The two latter, in whose writings this peculiarity was specially developed and made public, over and over again professed their cordial acquiescence with the rigidly Calvinistic deliverances of the Synod of Dort, and their irreconcilable opposition to Armimanism. Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universal ism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe — a condition foreknowed to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number, and to grant them all the gifts and graces necessary to that end. “This synthesis of a realm with a merely ideal universal ism (not really having a single individual), that is, the addition of a merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine, is the peculiarity of Amyraldism.”*
In the controversies consequent upon the appearance of these views it was customary to contrast the different conceptions entertained by the two parties as to the divine purpose in the following manner: The great body of the Reformed theologians conceived that the eternal purpose of God as to man’s salvation might be represented thus: He purposed to create man; then to permit him to fall; then out of the great mass of fallen and equally guilty and helpless men, he, moved by an unparalleled personal love, out of the mere good pleasure of his will, elected some to eternal life and to all the means thereof; and then, in order to accomplish this purpose of electing love, he gave his Son to redeem his people by his death, f Here all is consistent. There are no two inconsistent purposes; no inefficacious will; no love making infinite sacrifices for its objects, yet sus pending their participation in the benefits thereof upon conditions known to be impossible; and no conditional decrees in the infinite God; but one single, consistent sovereign purpose logically pursued from beginning to end.
Amyraldus, on the other hand, unfolded his conception of the divine purposes in this manner: God purposed to create man, then to permit him to fall, then out of a general love for all men he gave his Son to die for all, and to secure their salvation on the condition of
*Schweizer in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia,
f Turretin, L. iv., Q. 18, $
OPINION OF CA.LVIN1STS. of 7
their believing on him; but foreseeing that, if left to themselves, not one of the whole race would believe, and thus the redemption of Christ utterly fail of its end, and moved by a special personal love for the elect, sovereignly determined to give them special grace to lead them to faith, and hence certainly to secure thfir salvation.* According to this view, there are two distinct purposes respecting salvation in the divine mind from eternity — the general purpose, which concerns the human race as a whole without making any discrimination of persons; the special purpose, selecting out of the mass certain persons and appointing them to salvation. The general purpose has respect to objective grace, which it gives to all alike. The special purpose has respect to subjective grace, which it gives alone to the elect.. The general purpose respects the removing that external impediment to salvation out of the way of all which results from their inability to satisfy divine justice. The special purpose respects the removing out of the way of the elect that internal impediment which results from their inability to believe, f
This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance. It represents him as purposing that all men should be saved on condition of faith — a condition known to be impossible; and at the same time purposing that a large proportion of the race redeemed at such cost should remain in ignorance of the gospel, and of the conditions
* Dissert. Theol. Quatuor, Sahu, 1645. Exercitatio de Gratia Universal!. Salm, 1046.
f Turretin, L. iv., Q. 18, $ 13.
378 DESIGN OF THE A’. OXEMEJSf.
upon which participation in its benefits are suspended J c represents the all-perfect sacrifice as saving no one. and as depending upon a subsequent decree of election for its very partial success. It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of professed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of Gody universal redemption, &c., &G. Although this scheme has been held by some men of talent, who have been at the same time honest professors of the Calvin istic system and of the true doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement in particular — as, for instance, Amyraldus, Bishop Davenant and Richard Baxter, &c. — yet the judgment of the Methodist theologian, Richard Watson, is unquestionably true, that “it is the most inconsistent theory to which the attempts to modify Calvinism have given rise.“* In the case of men otherwise candid and intelligent professors of orthodoxy, these distinctions amount to nothing but words; and therefore do not indicate a state of faith to which the predicate heretical properly applies. When Amyraldus and Testardus were brought before the Synod of Alen9on (A. D. 1637) to answer for the “Novelties” wherewith they had greatly disturbed the peace of the Reformed Churches, they explained away their distinctions in terms which satisfied the most orthodox.” They declared that Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually;
* Institutes, vol. ii., p. 411.
and thai consequently his intention was to die for all men in respect to the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only with respect to its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy And as for the conditional decree, they declared that they never did understand anything than God’s will revealed in his word to give grace and life unto believers.“* This declaration reduces the whole matter to the old Calvinistic common place that the work of Christ is sufficient for all, adapted to all, and honestly offered to all, but not intended for all, nor provided for the sake of all. When used by men otherwise orthodox this “Novelty” is, therefore, not heresy, but an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language upon the subject. The serious objection to it is that it necessarily involves the use of language which properly and by common usage is significant of Arminian error. Its use generally marks a state of transition from comparative orthodoxy to more serious error. It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies not distinctly avowed. In latter years it has been generally associated with radically defective views as to the nature of the Atonement. It is of no use, for if it means no heresy, it relieves the hardness of no truth. Every competent thinker knows that the whole difficulty as well as strength of Calvinism lies in the conception of an eternal, all-comprehensive, absolute purpose, determining all things, alike physical and moral. The gloss we are considering fails to conciliate Socinians or Arminians, while it alienates true Calvinists. The experienced shun it, because they know hew often it con ceals serious error. In France the national development * Quick’s Synodicon, vol. ii., p. 354.
of this error was cut short by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (A. D. 1685), while in England, Scotland and America, the same language and the same arguments are used to mark the boundary-lines of a system of error which explorers have discovered to transect all the zones of modified Calvinism, Arminianism and radical Pelagianism.
2. The famous work entitled “Marrow of Modern Divinity77 was published in England in 1646. In 1718 it was republished in Scotland with a recommendatory preface by the Rev. James Hogg, of Carnock, and again in 1726 with copious explanatory notes by the Rev. Thomas Boston, of Ettrick; which last edition was reproduced a few years ago by our Board of Publication. This excellent and orthodox book became the occasion of a protracted controversy, styled the “Marrow Controversy,” which conspired with other and deeper causes to effect that alienation which issued in the formation of the Secession Church. There were good and sound men on both sides, but the most eminent Christians and theologians of that age were ranked among the “Marrow men/7 such as the Rev. James Hogg, Thomas Boston, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, &c. We have at present nothing to do with the general course or merits of this controversy. I refer to it only for the purpose of noticing the peculiar language which these men used with respect to what they called the “double reference77 of the Atonement — a peculiarity which consequently for a long time unhappily distinguished the theology of the Secession Churches from that of the great current of the Reformed Churches. The language of the “Marrow nen” was far less philosophical and profound than that used for very much the same purpose by Amyialdus and Baxter in the preceding century, while, perhaps, for the same cause their speculations were far more innocent. The characteristic interest of the professors of Saumur was speculative, while that of the “Marrow men” was practical and moral. The one party was composed of professors of theology, the other of preachers of the gospel. The one sought to define the order of the Divine Decrees, the other sought to establish firmly the Warrant of Faith.
The statement in the Marrow from which they took their departure is as follows: “I beseech you to consider that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved by nothing but his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men, that whosoever shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.”5* The “Marrow men” were all sound as to the nature of the Atonement, and as to the great Calvinistic principle that Christ died in pursuance of an eternal covenant with the Father in order to secure the salvation of his elect. As far as the bearing of the Atonement upon the elect was concerned, their writings were marked by no peculiarity. Their distinction was that they insisted that the Atonement had ALSO a designed general reference to all sinners of mankind as such. The early “Marrow men” were accustomed to say that although Christ did not die for all — that is, to save all — yet that he is dead for all, that is, available for all if they will receive him. That God, out of his general philanthropy, or love for human sinners as such,
* Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 126.
has made a Deed of Gift of Christ and of the benefits of his redemption to all indifferently, to be claimed upon the condition of faith. This general love of God is styled his “giving love,” and is distinguished from his “electing love,” of which only the elect, and his “complacent love,” of which only the sanctified are the objects. This Deed of Gift or Grant of Christ to all sinners as such, they held, is not to be merely resolved into the general offer of the gospel, but is to be regarded as the foundation upon which that general offer rests. It is a real grant; universal; an expression of love; conditioned on faith; the foundation upon which the ministerial offer of salvation rests; and it is the “warrant” upon which the faith of every believer rests, and by which that faith is justified.
As late as 1843, Dr. Balmer and the late learned and excellent Dr. John Brown, professors in the United Secession Church, were examined as to their doctrinal views under suspicion of heresy. After Balmer’s death Brown was libelled for heresy before the Synod in 1845. The statement then made by Brown of his views as to the extent of the Atonement was in substance as follows: ‘’•The proposition ‘that Christ died for men, had been held in three senses. In the sense f the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation, by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men.”*
Now, doubtless, as held by these men, all this was consistent with strict orthodoxy. They meant no more than that incidentally to his great design of saving the elect, and in order to that end, God had made certain provisions which were sufficient for all, adapted to each, and freely offered them to all. But all their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making a special head of that “giving love” which makes an actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision for its application, and which never intended the salvation of its objects? What real idea is signalized by the verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gospel to all, and the “Deed of Gift” of Christ upon which it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a “Deed of Gift or Grant” which actually conveys nothing, and which was eternally intended to convey nothing? Besides this, this language is injurious, because it leads to the perversion of scriptural language upon this subject, and to the great emptying of its proper force. We have proved that the Scriptures teach that the designed effect of Christ’s death was to “save his people from their sins,” and not simply, as Brown intimates, to remove legal obstacles out of the way of all sinners indifferently. In Scripture language the purpose of Christ in his death cannot fail. According to the implications of Brown’s language, that designed effect is left, as respects the vast
* History of Atonement Controversy in the Secession Church, by the Rev. Andrew Robertson.
majority of its objects, suspended upon the contingency of second causes. In Scripture language God’s “giving love” is that highest and most wonderful form of love which “spared not his own Son,” and therefore, a fortiori, will infallibly secure with him the gift of “all things” necessary for salvation. John iii. 16; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 4; v. 25; Rom. viii. 32; 1 John iii. 16; iv. 9. In the language of the “Marrow men” God’s “giving love” signifies a general benevolence towards all human sinners as such, consistent with his purpose that a large portion of them shall be left to the inevitable consequences of their own sin.
In this century a few, like Wardlaw and James Richards, have held the doctrine of the general reference of the Atonement in connection with strict orthodoxy as to other points. The great majority, however, of the Calvinistic advocates of a general redemption have been the professors of the New England or Edwardean Theology generally, such as Emmons, Taylor, Park, Fiske and others. The language of Amyraldus, the “Marrow men,” Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, Brown and others is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth. All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by this time that the original positions of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has, in the mean time, been distracted as to the “double will” of God, or the “double reference” of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their adherence to these “Novelties,” they must become Arrainians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the “Novelties.”
It has always been a marked characteristic of the Arminians, in their controversies with Calvinists, that they insist upon the importance of the distinction between the Impetration and the Application of Redemption. The former, they insist, is general; the latter, they admit to be limited to believers. Professed Calvinists of a certain school insist upon the same distinction. The Atonement, they maintain, is general, while they admit that Redemption, including the actual application of grace, is confined to the elect. They urge us to consider “the Atonement in itself,” apart from all thought of its application. But if you separate all thought of purpose and design from the sufferings of Christ, you would have of course nothing more than calamities devoid of all moral significance. He died for a purpose. The question is, What did he aim to accomplish in his death? I challenge any one to show (1) how the intended application of the Atonement could have been any more general than its actual application? And (2) if the intended application is admitted to have been limited to the elect, what remains to the general reference of the Atonement except (a) the intrinsic sufficiency; (b) the exact adaptation; and («) the bona fide offer — all which, it is agreed on all hands, is without any limit at all?
The question we debate, and which the Reformed Church has decided, is as to the intended application of the Atonement. If any man insists upon our abstract ing that intended application, and considering apart from it the sufferings of Christ by themselves, we have no objection to acknowledge that when considered apart from all design or intention whatsoever, the mere literal suffering which remains is indifferently as well adapted to the case of one man as to that of another.