The Arguments Stated upon Which the Reformed Doctrine as to the Design of the Atonement Rests
We are, under this fifth head, to consider the evidence relied upon by Calvinists as establishing the truth of their view of the Atonement as personal and definite. I believe that the general principles of Calvinism, and the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement in particular, being assumed as true, the only question as to the design of Christ’s work that remains possible is fully disposed of by a discriminating and exhaustive statement of the points at issue. Having spent so much time in rendering such a statement, I propose now to present the positive arguments establishing our view of the question in a very cursory manner.
1. That the design of the Atonement was the salvation of the elect personally and definitely, we think, certainly follows from the very nature of the Atonement itself, which has been fully demonstrated in the former part of this volume.
(1.) We then proved that Christ wrought our salvation as our SUBSTITUTE in the strict sense of that term, and that his suffering and obedience was strictly vicarious. He occupied our law-place, and the sentence due to the principals was executed on him. Now this fart, we do not believe, involves any calculation as to th<
400 DESIGN !JF THE ATONEMENT.
kind or amount of suffering. Whether a Substitute for few or for many, a divine Person might surely, by the same actions and in the same time, discharge all the obligations of all indifferently. But a strict substitution of person for persons, and the infliction on the one part, and the voluntary suffering on the other, of vicarious punishment surely implies a definite recognition, on the part of the Sovereign, and of the Substitute of the persons for whom the Substitute acts, whose sins he bears and whose penal obligation he discharges. The very conception of substitution necessarily involves definite, personal relations.
(2.) We have also clearly proved that the work of Christ as our Substitute was a complete SATISFACTION, fully discharging all the demands of the law as a broken covenant of works. The demands of the law terminate upon persons. Its demands can be satisfied only with respect to certain definite persons, and not with respect to a mass indefinitely. The law, moreover, has no further demands upon those persons with respect to whom all its conditions have been once fully satisfied. It hence follows, that all of those for whom Christ has in this sense made a perfect satisfaction must be saved. This does not imply at all that the sinner himself has any claim upon the grace whereby he is saved, nor that God is any the less an absolute Sovereign in giving it to, and in withholding it from, whomsoever he will. The whole matter lies in the intention of the Father in giving the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. The demands of the government with relation to an individual are satisfied when the services of another as his substitute are credited to his account. It depends simply upon the will of the substitute and upon the pleasure of the government whether these services shall be credited to one or to another. For whoms pever they are designed, they avail to cancel their obligations If God’s will in the matter should change, the persons to whom the law-satisfying righteousness would be credited would change also. Yet, even in that case, the changed destination would make no difference as to the personal and definite reference of the satisfaction. But since God cannot change, the same persons whom God in the beginning chose to eternal life are the persons for whom Christ made satisfaction, and the persons for whom he made satisfaction are the persons whom he now justifies, and will hereafter glorify.
(3.) Every form which it is possible for the General Atonement Theory to assume necessarily involves the hypothesis that in its essential nature the Atonement effects only the removal of legal obstacles out of the way of the salvation of men, making God reconcilable, not actually reconciling him; making the salvation of all men possible, not actually saving any. But the Scriptures teach that Christ actually came to save those for whom he died — “The Son of God came to save that which was lost.’7 Matt, xviii. 11; Luke “xix. 10. 2 Cor. v. 21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Gal. i. 4: “He gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, acording to the will of God.” Gal. iv. 5: “He was made under the law, that he might (cva) redeem them that are under the law, that we might (tva) receive the adoption of sons. 1 Tim. i. 15: “This is a faithful saying,
.... that Christ Jesus came into the woild to save sinners.” Again the Scriptures declare that the effect of Christ’s death is reconciliation and justification. Rom. v. 10: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Eph. ii. 16: “Christ died that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross.” The design of Christ, moreover, was to secure for those for whom he died the direct effect of remission of sins, peace with God, and deliverance from the curse of the law, from wrath, from death, from sin, &c. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. Eph. ii. 14: “For he is our peace who hath made both one.” 1 Thess. i. 10: “Even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” Heb. ii. 14: “That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, and deliver them, who through fear of death,” &c. Gal. iii. 13: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” 1 Pet. i. 18: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, but with the precious blood of Christ.”
But to make salvation possible, to make possible purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very different indeed from actually saving, purifying, delivering or reconciling. No man has a right to empty the glorious terms in which the gospel is revealed of all their saving power. It is not we who teach a limited atonement, but our opponents. Th<r, t must be a limited redemption indeed which leaves the majority of those for whom it was designed in hell for ever; lhich only makes salvation possible to all men in such a sense that it continues absolutely impossible to all until, by a sovereign grace which is antecedent to and independent of all redemption, it is made subjectively possible to a few.
2. None of the advocates of a general and indefinite Atonement can believe that Christ purchased repentance, faith or obedience for those for whom he died, for in that case all for whom he died must repent, believe and obey. But the Scriptures teach that Christ did purchase those blessings for those for whom he died. This is plain (1) because men have no natural power to furnish those conditions themselves. The Scriptures everywhere ascribe the whole ground and cause of our salvation to Christ. But if the differentiating grace which distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is to be attributed to any cause exterior to Christ’s redemption, then that cause, and not his redemption, is the cause of salvation. (2.) Faith and redemption are expressly said to be gifts of God. Eph. ii. 8: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Acts v. 31: “Him hath God exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (3.) They are given to us for Christ’s sake as the purchase of his blood. In Phil. i. 29 it is said to be given us in behalf of Christ to believe on him. Eph. i. 3, 4: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly things in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before he foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” Titus iii. 5, 6: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mei-cy he saved us, by tin,1 washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shod on us abundantly through Jesus Christ ow Saviow.” Gal. iii. 13, 14: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law... that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.7’ Acts ii. 33: “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.” Emmons, the logical advocate of a general Atonement, asserts that the only benefit we receive from Christ is forgiveness of sins on condition of faith.* But the Scriptures over and over again declare that Christ died with the design and effect of procuring for those for whom he died the subjective grace of sanctifi cation, including faith, as well as the objective grace of forgiveness conditioned on faith, “Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to him self a peculiar people zealous of good works.” Titus ii. 14. “Christ also loved the Church and gave him self for it: that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Eph. v. 26, 27. “Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (4.) All whom the Father gave to the Son believe, and none others. “All that
the Father giveth to me shall come to me, and
this is the Father’s will, that of all whit1! he hath given
me I should lose nothing.” John vi. 37, 39. “My
* Emmons’ Works, vol. iii., p. 18.
sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow
me, and I give to them eternal life My Father
which gave them me is greater than all.’7 John x. 27, 28. Christ said, in the tenth chapter of John, “I lay down my life for the sheep/7 and then said to the Jews, “Ye believe not because ye are not my sheep.” John x. 26. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Acts xiii. 48. Christ said to his disciples, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Matt. xiii. 12.
If, then, as the Scriptures teach, Christ purchased all spiritual graces for those for whom he died, all those for whom he died must believe. If the object for which he died was to sanctify and cleanse those for whom he died, then that great mass of men who live and die, eaten to the core with every form of corruption, cannot be those for whom Christ died.
3. All the advocates of general redemption believe that Christ, moved by an impersonal and indiscriminate philanthropy or love of men as such, died in order to make the salvation of all men possible to them on the condition of faith. But the facts of the case are — (a) that Christ died after generations of men had been going to perdition during four thousand years. Wrth regard to that half of the race who perished before his advent it is hard to see the bearings of a general redemption. And if it had no bearing upon their case, it is hard to see in what sense the redemption is general. (6.) That the condition upon which it is said Christ died to save them he has, for two thousand years since his woik of atonement was finished, withheld from the knowledge of three-fourths of the race. It is hard to see in what sense the death of Christ made the salvation of the heathen possible, or how he died on purpose to save them on the condition of faith, when he has never revealed to them his purpose of salvation, nor the conditions upon which it is suspended. And if the Atonement has no reference to the salvation of the untaught heathen, it is very hard indeed to see in what sense it is general.
4. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal Covenant of Redemption formed between the Father and the Son. The conditions assumed by Christ on his part were that he should, in living and dying, by action and suffering, fulfil all the legal obligations of his people. The conditions promised by the Father were that Christ should “see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.’7
That there was such a covenant formed in eternity is plain. (1.) God always acts on a plan, and there must therefore have been a mutual counsel and design on the part of the several persons of the Godhead distributing their several functions in the economy of redemption. (2.) The Scriptures explicitly state all the elements of a true covenant in this relation, giving the mutual promises and conditions of the two parties. “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes,” &c. Isa. xlii. 6, 7. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant... thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4. “When his soul shall make an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,... and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. THERE FORE will I divide him a portion with the great/7 &c. Isa. liii. 10, 11. (3.) Christ, while accomplishing his work on earth, makes constant reference to a previous commission he had received of the Father whose will he has come to execute. “I came to do the will of him that sent me.” “This commandment I have received of my Father.” “As my Father hath appointed unto me.” (4.) Christ claims the reward which had been conditioned upon the fulfilment of that commission. “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name to those whom thou hast given me out of the world. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me.” John xvii. 4-9. (5.) Christ constantly speaks of those that believe as having been previously given him by the Father. His Father had given them — “He laid down his life for the sheep.” John x. 15. They were given him by the Father. He knows them. They hear his voice. They shall never perish. The reason that the, reprobate do not believe is because they are not his sheep. John x. 26. He prays not for the world; he prays only foi those the Father had given him out of the world.
If he died in pursuance of a mutual understanding between himself and the Father, if he shall see of tjie travail of his soul and be satisfied, and if every one that the Father gave him in that covenant shall be saved, then surely those who are not saved are not those for whom he died.
5. The Scriptures habitually affirm that the MOTIVE which led the Father to give his Sen, and the Son to die, was not a mere general philanthropy, but the highest, most peculiar and personal love. Christ’s true purpose in dying can certainly have no more exact and complete expression than his outpourings of soul in the ear of his Father on the terrible night preceding his sacrifice, recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John. If ever the real design of his death was uppermost in his heart and speech, it must have been then. If ever the motives which led to his dying were in strong action, it must have been then. But all that he says of the world is that he does not pray for it. All the unutterable treasures of his love are poured forth upon those whom the Father gave him out of the world. “For their sakes.” he said, “I sanctify myself7’ — that is, devote myself to this awful service. John xvii. 13: “That they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John xv. 13. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. v. 8. “That ye may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth and length, and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fulness of God.” Eph. iii. 18, 19. “Hereby perceive we the love of God.” “In this was manifested the love of God, because he sent his only-begotten Son into the world,” &c. 1 John iii. 16; iv. 9, 10. This love of Christ for his Church has for its type the personal and exclusive love of the husband for the wife. Eph. v. 25-27.
It is inconceivable that this highest and most peculiar love, which moved God to give his only-begotten and well -beloved Son to undergo a painful and shameful death, could have had for its objects the myriads from whom, both before and after Christ, he had withheld all knowledge of the gospel; or those to whom, while he gives them the outward call of the word, he refuses to give the inward call of his Spirit. Can such love as the death of Christ expresses, welling up and pouring forth from the heart of the omnipotent God, fail to secure the certain blessedness of its objects? Paul expresses his opinion upon this precise point: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Rom. viii. 32. Surely it is a profane defamation of this love to say that its effects may be measured in God’s providing a salvation for all men to accrue to them upon conditions known and intended in the case of most to bo impossible. It is surely an abuse of Scripture to say that the elect and the reprobate, “those appointed to honour” and “those appointed to dishonour,” those who “before were of old ordained to this condemnation” and those who were “ordained unto eternal life,” those whom God “hardeneth” and those upon whom he “hath mercy,” the “world” and those “chosen out of the world,” are all indiscriminately the objects of this amazing, this heaven-moving, this soul-redeeming love.
6. The Scriptures habitually represent the definite design of the death of Christ to be the saving of “many,” the redemption of “his sheep” “his Church” “hispeoplc,” “his children,” the “elect.” “And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matt. i. 21. “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” “I lay down my life for the sheep.” John x. 11, 15. “The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts xx. 28. “Hus bands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it; .... that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Eph. v. 25. 26, 27. Christ is said (John xi. 51, 52) to have died to gather together in one the children of God who are scattered abroad. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s ELECT? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Rom. viii. 32-35.
Now, many plausible reasons may be assigned why, on the supposition of a personal and definite Atonement, general terms should be used on some occasions to illustrate the fact that the redemption is suited for all, sufficient for all, offered to all; that the elect are chosen out of every family, tribe and nation under heaven, and from every successive generation; and that finally the •vhole earth shall be redeemed from the curse, the gospel triumph among all nations, and the saints inherit the regenerated world. But we affirm that, on the contrary hypothesis of a general and indefinite Atonement, no plausible pretext can be given for the use of the definite language above quoted. If Christ loved the whole world so as to die for it, why say that the motive “or his dying was that his sheep should be saved?
7. Christ’s work as High Priest is one work, accc mplished in all its parts with one design and with one effect, and having respect to the same persons. The work of the high priest, as I showed in Chapter ix., Part I., included sacrifice or oblation and intercession. I proved also (a) that the work of the ancient priest secured the actual and certain remission of the sins of all for whom he acted, and that it bore a definite reference to the persons of all those whom he represented, and to none others. (6.) That the ancient priest offered intercession for precisely the same persons — for all of them, and for none others — for whom he had previously made expiation. This argument I will not here repeat. It will answer our purpose to notice —
(1.) That the Scriptures declare that the ancient priest was in all these respects a type of Christ. Our Lord, having made expiation in the outer court, went within the veil to make intercession. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Where he ever iiveth to make intercession for us.” Ileb. vii. 25; ix. 12, 24.
(2.) But Christ interceded only for his “sheep.” This is certain, (a) because it is always effectual. He intercedes as “a priest upon his throne,” He says his “Father heareth him always.” His form of intercession is,. “Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me,” &c. John xvii. 24. (b.) He expressly declares the fact that he intercedes only for the elect — “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” John xvii. 9. “Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” John xvii. 20. “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” John x. 16.
(3.) But if Christ makes intercession for the elect only, he can of course have died for them alone. As proved before, the ancient priest made intercession for all for whom he made expiation. The priestly work was one in design and effect in all its parts. It is simply absurd to suppose that the priest acted as a mediator for one party when he made the oblation, and for another when he made the intercession. This is the view cerlainly that Paul took of the matter — “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is also at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” &c. Here it is plain that the argument establishes the security of the “elect.” The ground upon which that security rests is. that Christ died er them and intercedes for them. Flair ly the dying and the intercession have one and the same personal object.
TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTR]tt E. 413
(4.) This is rendered more certain by the very nature of that perpetual intercession which Christ offers in behalf of his elect. “For us it is now perfected in heaven; it is not an humble dejection of himself, with cries, tears and supplications; nay it cannot be considered as vocal by the way of entreaty, but merely real, by the presentation of himself, sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, before the throne of grace in our behalf. With his own blood — to appear in the presence of God for us. Heb. ix. 12, 24. So presenting himself that his former oblation might have its perpetual efficacy, until the many sons given him are brought to glory. And herein his intercession consisteth, being nothing as it were but his oblation continued. He was the ‘Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.7 Rev. xiii. 8. Now his intercession before his actual oblation in the fulness of time being nothing but a presenting of the engagement that was upon him for the work in due time to be accomplished, certainly that which follows it is nothing but a presenting of what, according to that engagement, is fulfilled; so that it is nothing but a continuation of his oblation in postulating, by remembrance and declaration of it, those things which by it were procured. How, then, is it possible that the one of these should be of larger compass and extent than the other? Can he be said to offer for them for whom he doth not intercede, when his intercession is nothing but a presenting of his oblation in the behalf of them for whom he suffered, and for the bestowing of those good things which by that were purchased.”*
8. The relation which this question sustains to the
* Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ, B. I., chap. vii.
doctrine of Election is self-evident. The Calvinisti” doctrine that God of his mere good pleasure has from eternity infallibly predestinated certain persons out of the mass of fallen humanity to salvation and to all the means thereof, and that in so doing he has sovereignly passed over the rest of mankind and left them to the natural consequences of their sin, necessarily settles the question as to the design of God in giving his Son to die. It is purely unthinkable that the same mind that sovereignly predestinated the elect to salvation, and the rest of mankind to the punishment of their sins, should, at the same time, make a great sacrifice for the sake of removing legal obstacles out of the way of those from whose path it is decreed other obstacles shall not be removed. Schweitzer, in his article in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia, says that Amyraldus, towards the close of his life, came to see that there was nothing real in all the new distinctions with which he had been attempting to smooth the harshness of Calvinism, and to obviate some of the more specious objections to it. Unquestionably there is no compromise between Arminianism and Calvinism. Those who attempt to stand between must content themselves with treading the air while they receive the fire of both sides. We do not object to Calvinistic Universal ism (that is, universal particularism, or particular universalism) because of any danger with which — when considered as a final position — it threatens orthodoxy. We distrust it rather because it is not a final position, but is the first step in the easy descent of error.
9. Our view has the capital advantage of agreeing with and harmonizing all the facts of the case, and of
TRUTH OF THE REFORMED DOCTR/XE. 415
representing Christ as having designed to accomplish by his death precisely what in the event is accomplished, and nothing else. We believe that he designed to accomplish by his death the following ends: (1.) Evidently as the end to which all other ends stand related as means, the only end which affords any adequate reason for what he did, he purposed to secure certainly the salvation of his own people, those whom the Father had given unto him. (2.) To secure that end he designed to purchase for them, and then efficaciously to communicate to them, faith and repentance and all the fruits of the Spirit. (3.) In order to the great end above stated he purposed to purchase many temporal and other blessings short of salvation for all mankind, and in various degrees for individual men, just as they are actually experienced under the dispensations of Providence. (4.) In order also, as a further means to the same end, to lay, in the perfect sufficiency of the Atonement for all and its exact adaptation to each, a real foundation for the bonafide offer of salvation to all men indiscriminately on the condition of faith. The design has the elect for its sole, ultimate end, and it in any way respects the non-elect only as the method which God has chosen for the application of redemption to the elect necessarily involves the bringing to bear upon the non-elect, among whom they live, influences, moral and otherwise, which in various degrees involves their characters and destinies.
The hypothesis of a general and indefinite Atonement admits but of two distinct positions, that ol the Arminian and that of the Calvinistic Universalist. According to the Arminian view, the Father and the Son did all that properly belonged to either of them to clc tr secure the salvation of all men. The Holy Spirit als impartially gives common grace to all men. Each of the divine Persons, therefore, is baffled in the mutual design as far as the multitude of the lost is concerned. As far as the intrinsic efficacy of the Atonement is concerned, it might have failed in every case, as it has failed in a majority of the cases for which it was designed. Indeed, the Atonement has, properly speaking, secured the salvation of no one — has been, on the contrary, dependent in every case upon the self-determined choice of sinful men for whatever measure of success it has attained. There is, moreover, upon this view, a mysterious want of conformity between God’s dispensation of redemption and his dispensation of providence. In his dispensation of redemption and grace he has done all he could to accomplish his design of saving all men indifferently; while in his dispensation of providence he has withheld those essential conditions of knowledge, without which salvation is simply impossible, from three-fourths of the people living on the face of the earth.
According to the view of the Calvinistic Universalist, God loved all enough to give his Son to die for them, and yet loved only the elect enough to give them his Spirit. He designed in the sacrifice of his Son to make the salvation of all men possible, while at the same time he sovereignly intended that only the elect should be saved. His decree of redemption is conditional, but the conditions were intended to be impossible. His decree of election is unconditional. God went to work at great cost to make the salvation of all men objectively possible, while he at the very same time intf/nded that the salvation of the majority should continue subjectively impossible. God the Redeemer died that all men might be saved if they would believe after half of them were already in perdition, while God the providential Ruler left two-thirds of the other half permanently ignorant of the fact that any salvation was provided, or of the terms upon which it might be secured. At present this is the view of “advanced thinkers,”