11c Atonement

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER XI.

ATONEMENT. In the third chapter of John (John 3:16-17) we read: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." This passage is relied upon with a great deal of confidence. But, on the other hand, it may be said that there is no direct reference to the atonement in the text. I do not say there is nothing in the text that has a favorable bearing on their doctrine; but I think that when the text is fully and fairly examined it will be seen that it is far from being conclusive. They lay a great deal of stress on the term "world," and this they must do, or they can not make the text available to their purpose. But if they adhere to this rule, it will prove more than they would be willing to admit; it would answer the purpose of those who would use it to prove the doctrine of universal salvation as well as it does to prove universal atonement. In fact, I am not sure but the Universalist can frame a more plausible argument upon it than the other. As a proof-text, the degree of evidence it affords must depend largely upon the true interpretation of the text itself. Let us then look at their own exposition. They say our Savior was intending to teach Nicodemus that His religion was not to be confined to the Jews, but was designed for the benefit of all nations. This interpretation is plausible, and, indeed, we may say it is rational, for we know the strong prejudices of the Jews in regard to the Gentiles, and it is often referred to in the New Testament. We must admit that it is not stated in the passage, that our Savior had this object in view; but I can find no evidence to the contrary. If, then, we adopt this interpretation, it will fully justify the form of expression used by our Savior without the least allusion to the atonement; and it is certain that there is no reference to the atonement in the passage, except by a distant implication.

If we will correctly understand those scriptures in which we find this general phrase, "the world," we are compelled to have recourse to the connection and to the object of the writer, so far as that can be ascertained; for if we adhere tenaciously to the meaning assigned to it by the writers referred to, we shall find it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the inspired writers from the charge of self-contradiction. And we shall find it equally difficult to avoid universal salvation; and as there are other passages adduced by those authors in support of their views, it may not be amiss to make a few observations on this subject, with a view to guard ourselves against the danger of false interpretations. Whoever will take the trouble--and the trouble would not be great--to collate and compare those places in which John uses the phrase "the world," will be convinced, if he has any candor, that this apostle uses it with a great deal of latitude. It is alleged that the language in the text is as general as can be used. But they themselves would not pretend that the phrase is always to be understood in a strictly universal sense. It is a good rule to compare scripture with scripture; and it is especially necessary to compare the language, in different places, of the same inspired writer when he uses the same terms. In the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:19) it is said: "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." But the context proves that the phrase "the whole world," must not be applied in a strictly universal sense; and I will not contend obstinately for the application of a rule of interpretation to a passage which seems to give support to my views, when I will not submit to its application to one that is contrary to my sentiments.

Now, in connection with the text referred to in John’s gospel, let us consider some other passages which contain the same phrase, and which are relied on by the advocates of universal atonement with a great deal of assurance. 1 John 2:2 : "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." On this passage we find the following remark: "No language could express the universality of the design of the atonement more clearly or strongly." But let us not be terrified by this confident and defiant manner of speaking; for, to say the least, it is no credit to those who employ it; and I have no doubt the writer himself could have expressed the universality of the design of the atonement in terms stronger and clearer than the words of the quotation.

1. In the first place, it is said, on the other side, that the apostle is addressing his instruction to believers who are already reconciled to God through the atonement; and this will not be denied. They, therefore, think the apostle means all believers in every age and in every part of the world, and this explanation of the text is supported by the context.

2. It is further argued that Christ is "a propitiation through faith in His blood." And we presume that no one will pretend that He is really a propitiation to unbelievers; or a propitiation to any in any other way, and consequently this clear and strong proof is no proof at all to their purpose.

3. In addition to the above, it may be considered that the passage under consideration has a direct reference to the intercession of Christ. There is no direct reference to the atonement proper, though, of course, there could be no intercession without the atonement. "My little, children"--a form of expression which the apostle does not apply to the whole world of mankind. The passage in the First Epistle to Timothy, where it is said, "He gave Himself a ransom for all," etc., can not, with any propriety, be applied in a universal sense. The context requires a different construction. The believers in the doctrine of a universal atonement rely with a great deal of assurance on a passage in the second chapter of Hebrews--"That He, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." This text is, in my judgment, the most difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of personal limitation in the atonement, of any that we find in the Bible. But it is said, on the other side, that the word "man" is not in the original, and that it should be translated everyone; and it is so translated by the Bible Union. I could not give the reader a clear view of my idea of the meaning of the text without entering somewhat at large into the doctrinal part of the epistle, and that would lead me too much out of my way; but the verse in which the words occur, and the following verse, are very intimately connected, and I suppose that the inspired writer had the same persons in view in the ninth verse when he says "every one," that he had in the tenth when he speaks of "many sons."

There is a passage in the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians which is thought to give strong support to the doctrine of universal atonement. It reads thus: "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again."

Whether this scripture affords any proof of the universality of the atonement, depends entirely on the true interpretation of the text; for no one will pretend that the word all must in all cases comprehend the whole human family; and if that is not its meaning here, it will yield no support to the doctrine of universal atonement. Some of those who contend for this doctrine understand the apostle to teach the universal depravity of human nature. They allege that the apostle takes it for granted, as a doctrine admitted by all, that Christ died for the whole human family; and thence argues, that this being so, the whole human family were dead in sin. But to take this for granted is a very violent assumption. I apprehend that it is not true, in fact, that it was a doctrine admitted by all, that Christ died for the whole human family, and there is no proof given or offered to sustain the assumption. And I would also remark that the depravity of human nature is not the subject of the apostle’s discourse, and is not alluded to in the chapter; neither is the subject of the total depravity of human nature discussed in the whole epistle.

I would also further observe, that even if it were admitted that Christ died for every one of the human race, it would not prove the total depravity of human nature. It would prove that all are under the curse of the law, but not that all are totally corrupt. Total depravity might be proved by the work of the Spirit, but not by the atonement of Christ; and it is not the practice of this apostle to prove his points by fallible arguments. Whether the doctrine is true or not, I can not accept this interpretation of the text.

There are others who give a different interpretation of the text in question. They suppose that it was not the design of the apostle to teach that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom Christ died. This construction agrees much better with the succeeding verse, and indeed it is more in accordance with the scope of the passage; and they allege that a more literal rendering of the original would be, "then were they all dead." So that the extent of the word all in the first member of the sentence is to be determined by its meaning in the latter.

I believe this exposition is sanctioned by our best theological writers; yet if I may be allowed the privilege of submitting my own views of the passage, I should incline to an interpretation somewhat different. I think the apostle refers to that federal relation which Christ sustains to His people. Paul frequently refers to it in his epistles. If Christ, the Surety and Head of His people, died for them, then they all, as members of His body, are considered as dying in Him. The same doctrine is taught in this text that we find in other scriptures: "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him." (Romans 6:8. See also Romans 6:6, ib.) "For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him." (2 Timothy 2:11) "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." (Galatians 2:20) Hence the apostle’s reference to the resurrection, in the text under consideration, is quite pertinent; and the argument is this: That as Christ died and rose again into a new life, and we (mystically or federally) died in Him and rose, in Him, we ought henceforth to live, not unto ourselves, but to Him who died for us and rose again. The same idea is brought to light again in the last verse of the same chapter. We will give the rendering of the Bible Union translators, which, though in harmony with the common version, is probably more strictly literal: "Because we thus judged, that if one died for all, then they all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him who for them died and rose again." If this translation is correct, it bears favorably on the interpretation presented above. Of one thing I feel assured--throughout the whole chapter the apostle is speaking to believers and of believers. The reader may examine for himself.

There may be some other scriptures brought in support of the theory of universal atonement, but the arguments on both sides, I presume, are very similar to those already considered. There is, however, one more passage which impartiality requires us to examine; and I shall notice it the more willingly, as giving the reader a specimen of the way in which learned men, who are conscious of possessing some reputation for biblical scholarship, would force their opinions upon unsuspicious readers by positive and unqualified assertions. The text referred to is 2 Peter 2:1 : "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Of this text it is said--and I quote literally--"It is expressly said that some for whom He (Christ) died, will perish." And again: "There could not be a more unequivocal declaration that some for whom Christ died will perish." Thus we see in what bold and unqualified assertions some learned writers will indulge themselves, in order to force their own peculiar opinions upon their readers. In this way they foreclose inquiry, and expect implicit submission to their dictates. Now the assumption of the writer is, that "some for whom Christ died will perish." Let us attend to his arguments and explanation of the text. He says, "When the word bought occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, with reference to redemption, the allusion is to Him" (Christ); and be proceeds to give us a number of examples, all of which are plainly to the point, though in some of them it was unnecessary to speak of an allusion, seeing Christ is expressly named. But who ever doubted that when the words bought, purchased, and redeemed are used inreference to redemption, that Christ is the person referred to? It was incumbent on him to show that redemption--the redemption of Christ--is referred to in the text by the word bought. This he does not attempt, though he well knew that it is a controverted point. The numerous passages adduced by him prove that which no one doubts, but this is proving nothing to the point; and that which his object requires to be proved, he would have us to take for granted. Why does he not prove, or attempt to prove, that which requires proof? What the author wished to impress on the mind of the reader was, that Christ is the person referred to in the text by the word Lord: this he fails to do, and he is religiously careful never to give the reader a hint that the word translated Lord is nowhere else applied to Christ in the New Testament. Hence it is doubtful whether He is the person designated as "the Lord." Moreover, it is by no means certain that the word "bought" is used in its literal sense of purchased; for the word is used frequently in the Bible where there is no reference to the payment of a price. And again, there is no proof in the text, or in the whole chapter, that the death of Christ is intended, and of course there can be no certainty that the apostle had any reference to the atonement; and besides this, the term "destruction" is often used without any allusion to everlasting punishment. And yet our learned author affirms that the text proves "expressly" and "unequivocally" that Christ died for them, and that they perished. In this way he would override the private judgment of the reader, and carry his point by downright dogmatism. Testimony that is exceptionable in so many points of view can never be considered by the judicious and candid inquirer as decisive; and if it would be illiberal to impeach the author’s candor, we shall then be reduced to the necessity of doubting his critical judgment. He could not plead ignorance to these objections to his view of the text, notwithstanding he makes no allusion to them.

It has been objected against the commercial scheme of atonement that it excludes grace in respect to the pardon of sin. Now, it is not incumbent on me to defend a doctrine which I reject from the attacks of its opposers; but it is incumbent on me to defend the truth, so far as I am able, from unfounded objections; and the objection, as they state it, is as applicable to the true doctrine of atonement as it is to that against which they urge it. I do not think I misapprehend the ground upon which they found this objection, because their own illustration makes it unmistakably plain. If Onesimus owes Philemon a debt, and Paul pays it, Onesimus has a right to claim a discharge, and Philemon is bound, by simple justice, to release him. If a creditor (it is said) receives the whole amount of his demand, no matter whether from the debtor or from a third person, it can not be said with propriety that he forgave the debtor. There is no room for grace in the transaction. The objection, so far as I can see, is founded on a supposition that the atonement of Christ is not a perfect and complete satisfaction for sin, and, therefore, did not fully satisfy the claims of Divine justice. Indeed, the figure by which they illustrate it fixes the objection to that very principle. If Christ died for every human soul; or, if He died for a select few, provided His death was a full and complete atonement, or satisfaction, for the sins of those for whom He died, such atonement would as effectually exclude grace from their pardon in the one case as in the other. I regret to see this objection employed by those who contend for the all-sufficiency and infinite value of the atonement of Christ.

I will present the reader with the result of some of my reflections on the subject, and in doing so I shall lay down two fundamental propositions, viz:

1. That the pardon of a sinner is an act of grace--pure and special grace and mercy.

2. That Christ, by His death, rendered a complete and perfect satisfaction to the claims of Divine justice. To these propositions I shall adhere; and if it can not be shown that they are consistent with each other--if it can not be made to appear to my satisfaction that both way be true at the same time--I will cheerfully ascribe it to my own blindness, but my postulates I will not renounce. The objectors contrive, by their mode of illustration, to give the objection a plausibility which disguises the truth; but there is that in the very face of the objection which ought to awaken suspicion and provoke a critical examination of the figure by which they attempt to illustrate their argument. If we assume that the Divine government is not administered on principles of strict and exact justice, we would have room enough for the exercise of mercy in the pardon of sin; but mercy thus extended would be at the sacrifice of justice. Or, if we take the ground that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, we might find scope for the dispensation of mercy in remitting the penalty of the law; but then we might be met with the question, "Do we then make void the law" through the atonement? and the only admissible answer would be, We do; and Christ thus becomes, not a fulfiller of the law, but a nullifier of the law.

Let us examine this figure by a comparison, and see whether it is, indeed, analogous to the subject which it professes to illustrate.

1. In the first place it is contended by those very persons who admit this objection, that there is not, in every respect, a proper analogy between commercial law and criminal law. That crime is quite a different thing from pecuniary debt. In this they are certainly right; and yet their argument seems to be founded upon the supposition that there is a true analogy between commercial justice and criminal justice. I think we should hesitate before we apply this figure.

2. In the second place, I say that no creditor, debtor, and intervening friend ever stood, or can stand, in the same relations to each other that the parties concerned in atonement and pardon stand to each other. The relations existing between those parties are perfectly unique, and admit of no parallel. In this respect there is a very great want of analogy; and I may add that this want of similarity is one that has an important bearing on the issue in question; but it is sufficient at present that we recognize the fact of this want of parallelism.

3. When a creditor receives the payment in full, he has no other claims upon the debtor. There are no other demands to satisfy, and the parties stand upon terms of perfect equality with each other, and the debtor is under no other obligation. The case is very different in respect to atonement and pardon.

4. When a friend pays the debt of another, the expedient originates with himself. His specific object is not to secure the rights of the creditor, but to confer a favor on the debtor in releasing him from pecuniary obligation. It is not an expedient resorted to by the creditor himself out of kindness to the debtor. The creditor has no concern in providing the means for the debtor’s release; neither does he make any sacrifice in any respect that be may extend favor to the debtor. Analogy is wanting here in its most vital point. The payer might entertain an implacable hatred toward the creditor, and the creditor might bear equal ill-will to the payor. The creditor might also cherish a bitter enmity to the debtor, yet the transaction would, in itself, be legal and just. Not so in the pardon of sin. There is scarcely the shadow of applicable analogy.

5. I shall now take higher ground. I assume that Christ has made full and complete satisfaction to Divine justice for sin, and that the remission of the penalty of the law may be claimed as a right--it may be demanded as a legal and equitable right on principles of justice. But here I must enter my protest against the method of stating an acknowledged truth with an inference as if it were a simple proposition. Their argument is this: Christ has satisfied the claims of Divine justice; therefore the sinner has a right to claim his discharge. The proposition is true, but the inference is not legitimate. If the sinner himself had satisfied the claims of the law he would, as far as I can see, have a right to demand remission. If a creditor receives the full amount of his due, though at the hand of a third person, his claim is liquidated, and, according to the mere forms of judicial law, the debtor may plead it in bar of judgment; but every one must see that he has no claims of his own upon which to found a plea. The creditor is not brought under obligation to the debtor to release him. If the debtor is released, it is to him an act of pure grace. But there is another capital deficiency in their mode of illustration, which shows that it ought never to be employed in that application. The supposition is, that a friend--an isolated, disinterested, and independent friend--pays the debt. But this is not the character and relation in which Christ made atonement for us. He became onewith us. He was our Surety--our Substitute. He assumed an obligation to make satisfaction to Divine justice for our sins, and paid the debt--calling it debt--in discharge of His own obligation for our sake. He has therefore a firmly founded right to demand the release of those for whom He paid the debt, and whose Surety and Substitute He was in the whole transaction. If He, as Surety, is discharged, those for whom He acted in that relation are virtually discharged also. He, as Surety, and in the sinner’s place, pays the debt, and, officiating still as Surety and in the sinner’s place, claims, as a matter of right, the sinner’s discharge.

Let us view this subject of atonement and remission in its twofold relations, both as it respects the sinner and as it respects Christ as Surety. The atonement is a plea for both. It provides and supplies the sinner coming to a throne of grace in prayer for pardon, with a good, and acceptable, and prevailing plea, authorized by the promise. Oppressed with guilt, and coming to a throne of grace as a helpless sinner, an unworthy and wrath-deserving beggar--the only attitude in which a sinner ever ought to come, or can come acceptably--he may successfully plead the atoning blood of Christ for the remission of his sins: and this is a privilege which is graciously given to the believing sinner; and be exercises it as a precious privilege, and not as a rightful claim. On the other band, Christ, as Surety, comes before the Judge officiating in judicial law and authority, and as the representative and Advocate of the sinner; and in this relation the atonement supplies him with a legal, judicial, equitable, and available plea, upon which He can legally claim and demand, in judicial administration, the discharge of the sinner from penal liability. Thus we see that though they both bring the same plea substantially, there is yet an immense and essential difference in the principles upon which they respectively present this confessedly good plea. Christ pleads on the principle of judicial right--the sinner on the principle of special grace. I might enlarge on this topic to a much greater extent, and would be glad to do so, but I forbear.

There is one more aspect of this subject, in which it is specially necessary that we examine it--it would be unpardonable to overlook it. The argument of those who contend that there is no grace, on the ground that the debt has been paid by a friend, extends no further than to mere legal exemption. They can not pretend to carry it further, for the principle upon which they found the argument contemplates nothing more. The creditor says to the debtor: "Your friend has discharged your debt, and it would be unjust in me to require it of you--I, therefore, release you." And so, in like manner, the Divine Judge says to the sinner: "Christ has suffered the penalty of the law for you, and therefore it would be unjust in me to inflict it upon you--I discharge you." Would such forgiveness as this fill the desire of a true lover of God? It may be, and probably is, as much as the unrenewed heart would expect or desire; but the true child of God can not be satisfied with this; he knows that his God has just cause to be angry with him, and he feels that he can not have peace with Him, except God is reconciled to him. David did not execute the penalty of the law upon Absalom, but he said, "Let him not see my face." The pardon for which I pray includes something more than mere legal absolution. It is not enough that my Father should say to me, "Thou shalt not die;" let Him also say, "Since thou wast precious in my sight thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee." I want to be precious in His sight--to be honorable before Him--and to be the object of His love, even of His forgiving love. Let my reconciled Father say, "Is he my dear son ? Is he a pleasant child ? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still." The truly contrite spirit desires such pardon as is exemplified in the father of the prodigal. Forgiveness in this point of view can never be charged with the absence of grace--it is an act of grace--special grace. There is nothing but grace in it. The satisfaction made to the law by the atonement does not reach it. It is the forthgoing of eternal love. The truly penitent soul wants that kind of pardon which is stipulated in the everlasting covenant: "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The atonement was interposed to make way for grace to abound--for grace to reign--in the pardon of sin. That kind of remission which the objector’s argument implies, might consist well enough with the remembrance of sin, for it might be extended without one spark of love to the sinner--simply an exemption from the legal penalty--a great blessing, truly, in itself, but coming far short of that forgiveness of sin by which the grace of God is so much glorified. The Specific Design of Atonement. In the further prosecution of our inquiries into this subject, I shall lay down some fundamental truths which I consider as being indispensable preliminaries to a proper and correct understanding of the true theory of atonement. And I shall, in the first place, premise--

1. That the atonement is a true, complete, and perfect satisfaction to Divine justice for sin. If it is not, it is not atonement in any proper sense of the term.

2. That the atonement is, in itself--in its nature and worth--sufficient for the sins of the whole family of Adam.

Nothing more, therefore, would be necessary, by way of satisfaction for sin, if it were intended that the whole race of sinners should be saved by it.

3. In the third place, that it did actually and effectually accomplish all that for which it was designed.

4. That the atonement was strictly vicarious. Christ died in the room of sinners. He died that the sinner might not die. He suffered the penalty of the law in the place of the sinner, that the sinner might be saved from the penalty of the law.

5. That the atonement is truly personal in its primary relation. It was made for persons; not merely for sin in the abstract, but for the sins of personal sinners.

If it was not, it is wrong to call it vicarious.

6. That the great object--the primary and special design--of the atonement is to redeem sinners from the curse of the law.

Any theory of atonement that does not secure this object, is neither worth confirmation nor refutation.

Now, keeping these preliminaries in view, we are prepared to inquire into the true extent of the atonement. And I shall not select general and indefinite modes of expression that may mean more, or may mean less, but the most pointed and definite terms that my limited knowledge of the English language will supply. In the second of the foregoing postulates it is assumed that the atonement of Christ is, in its objective fullness--in its intrinsic merit and value--sufficient for the redemption of the whole world. This attribute of the atonement, I believe is not denied by many at the present day, and I shall not, at this time, solicit the reader’s attention to this topic; but I must ingenuously own that I do not see the relevancy of some arguments alleged in support of it.

If any shall say that by the death of Christ there were other objects accomplished besides the redemption of sinners, I shall not controvert their position. The death of the Son of God was accomplished to make atonement for sin, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, though other objects, as consequential or incidental results, might, and certainly did, follow. But I shall still contend that so far as we, sinful men, have any interest in the atonement, the primary and special object of the atonement was the redemption of sinners. Outside of this object we are under no necessity of discussing the subject, though it is the privilege of all to investigate the subject to any extent that the Scriptures will authorize. By the third postulate assumed above, it is affirmed that the atonement did effectually accomplish all that for which it was designed; by the fourth, that it was strictly vicarious or substitutional; and by the fifth, that it was strictly personal. Now, if the atonement was any thing that can with propriety be called atonement, I do not see how these premises can be denied; and if they are conceded as true, I am at a loss to see how it can be universal, without also admitting universal salvation. So that the precise point to which we must direct our inquiries, is the design of the atonement in its relation to sinners personally. And if we admit that God had, in providing atonement, a determinate design or purpose to save sinners--personal sinners-- through the atonement, the question for our present consideration will be reduced to this: Was it the Divine purpose to save all the sinners of the human family by the atonement, or to save those only who will be actually saved ? That God had a fixed and determinate purpose to save sinners, I suppose would be admitted by all, whatever might be their views of the atonement; and, indeed, it can not be made a question if the authority of Scripture is to be respected. And as He saves sinners in no other way than by the atonement of Jesus Christ, He provided the atonement that He might accomplish His purpose of saving sinners. And whatever purpose He might have respecting those who will not be saved, it surely will not be pretended that He did not design to save those who will eventually be saved; for the supposition involves so many absurdities that the rational mind rejects it intuitively.

Without atonement there is no salvation. That is the foundation upon which our salvation stands. Now if, in laying this foundation, it was the Divine purpose to save the whole world of mankind, then all the world will certainly be saved, or the Divine purpose fails. In so far as the Divine purpose fails, God sustains a defeat, and Satan obtains the victory; and it seems to me this is bound to be the inevitable result if the atonement is universal in its personal design. If the atonement was designed for the redemption of all, and there are any who do not obtain all for which it was made, it is manifest that the atonement does not accomplish all that for which it was designed. I can see no possibility of the contrary; for that there is a failure is too obvious to admit of debate. This subject is important, and to arrive at the truth is, in the highest degree, desirable. It is right, therefore, that we should examine it in every light in which it can be proposed to our consideration. With this in view we say:

If the love and grace of God has ever been manifested to this lost and guilty world, it is brought out into most conspicuous exhibition in the death of the Son of God--in the fact that He died for sinners; in other words, that He made atonement by His death for our sins. The grace of God shines in every part and every act of this most marvelous transaction. It is a fountain of grace--a treasure of grace--to personal sinners. Now, if this atonement was made for all persons, then every person must have a personal interest in all its gracious provisions, equal to, and corresponding with, the personal relation in which he stands to this universal atonement; and thus all are comprehended within the boundaries of atoning grace, for all are included within the design for which the atonement was made. But, notwithstanding, it is admitted that all will not be saved; and that, because it was not the design of God to make it savingly efficacious to those who are lost. According to this scheme, those who are finally lost have a secured interest in the grace of atonement--secured by the purpose of God--because Christ died to make atonement forthem; but it was the Divine purpose not to make this atoning grace savingly efficacious to them, but He did design to make it savingly efficacious to those who are saved. By this arrangement--this limited design in the application--the grace of the application is not only withheld from those who are lost, but they are actually, and by design, excluded from the grace of the atonement which was already secured to them by their interest in it. The sovereign discriminating grace of God, in making atonement specially for a part, and not for all, has been stigmatized as partiality. But in this scheme of universal atonement there is something that looks worse than partiality--it is sovereignty with a vengeance. And I can see no way to escape this offensive consequence if we contend for one unlimited personal design in making atonement, and another distinct and limited personal design in applying its benefits; but I see no necessity for more than one design. The object and design of providing atonement is to save sinners, and the object and design of applying its benefits is to save sinners. The object in both is the same; and why should there be more than the one design? Neither do I think they can show any good result that is gained by the supposition of two distinct purposes--the one comprehending all, and the other only a part; whereas, by the objective limitation in the second design, the universality of the first is rendered objectively nugatory in the exact proportion to the number of those who fail of salvation. The atonement, in its nature and as a meansof grace to sinners, is sufficient for all, and is free to all, and was designed to be so; but I see no advantage arising from the theory of circumscribing the design of the application within narrower limits than the design of the atonement.

It is not in place for the advocates of universal atonement to say that the reason why any sinner is lost is because of his unwillingness to accept, or seek for, the blessings procured by the death of Christ; for although this is strictly true in fact, yet it is not to the point, and as an argument it will weigh as much against one scheme as the other; for those who are saved are naturally, of themselves, as unwilling as they that are lost. And no sinner is ever really and truly disposed to seek and accept the blessings of the atonement before the grace of the atonement is applied--it is the application of this grace that makes him willing. The great design of the atonement, in its relation to us as sinners, is to procure the gift of the Holy Spirit--to open up a pathway of mutual reconciliation and spiritual communion between God and His alienated children--to destroy the enmity of the sinner’s heart and to subdue his perverse will and bring it into subjection to the gospel. This is the prime, comprehensive blessing procured by the atonement. The gift of the Spirit is itself the application of the benefits of atonement; and till this gift is received there is no true and real willingness of desire to seek or receive the application of the atonement in the hearts even of those who are saved. If this is not correct, it is in vain to talk of salvation by grace. Such talk would be like clouds without water. And if it is true, the question remains essentially the same. Did God design to give the Holy Spirit to every sinner alike, through this medium of atonement, or to those only who will be saved by it? If the atonement was made designedly for--specifically for--every one personally, and the Spirit, in consequence, is given to every one personally, the question must arise, "Why is not every one saved?" I confess myself unable to answer it without admitting a disastrous failure--a failure both in the work and in the design of the atonement; for it is manifest that the atonement does not accomplish all that for which it was made and designed. It may be asked: If Christ did not die to make atonement for the sins of the whole family of man--for every sinner--why should all men universally be called upon to accept of its gracious provisions? But, on the other hand, it may be inquired: Why should a true, effectual, and complete atonement be made for some when it was not the will of God to make it efficacious to their salvation, as the saving benefit was contingent upon the Divine will? That there is matter couched in such questions that contains solid and sound argument, I have no doubt; but it may not be very easy, in every case, to determine with positive certainty that our conclusions are legitimate. Leaving the latter of these questions to the reader’s reflection, we will proceed to offer some thoughts on the former. To arrive at a satisfactory solution of this problem, it is necessary to determine, in the first place, what in the atonement will constitute a sufficient ground to justify universal invitations to sinners to believe the gospel and accept of salvation through Christ. As the atonement was made for sinners, if it is sufficient for all sinners, I am not able to see what more is necessary to warrant any preacher to extend the invitations of the gospel to all sinners; nor what more is necessary to warrant any sinner to come to Christ, having the assurance of the promise that he shall obtain the blessings of the atonement.

I am willing, and I sincerely desire, that our view of the atonement should be subjected to the severest scrutiny; for I desire that all should know the truth, whatever the truth may be. And if our doctrine can not stand before the truth, by all means let it fall; for this reason I would like to keep before the mind of the reader as clear and precise a conception of the point under discussion as possible. I will attempt an illustration; and being unskillful in the art of constructing figures, I will borrow one from the prophet, which, though used by the prophet for a different purpose, will, as a figure, answer mine very well: "I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. The beasts of the field shall honor me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen. This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise." (Isaiah 43:19-21) Here the Lord is represented as making rivers in the desert, through which His people had to pass in their return to their own land. The beasts of the forest, and the wild fowls, even the most hateful of them, might freely drink of these waters; and they are said to honor God for these rich and free supplies. There was water enough there for all, and it was free to all, and even the enemies of the Lord, and of His Israel, were not prohibited the use of these waters; but the purpose, the specific design in providing these waters, is expressly declared to be to "give drink to my people, my chosen." So the provisions of the atonement are sufficient for all, and are free to all, but the special object in making the atonement was the redemption of the Church--even all that will ever be finally saved..

Expounding the doctrine of the atonement and calling sinners to repentance, are different things; and, in the latter work, the minister has no business with the Divine purpose as it relates to persons. His office is to show the sufficiency of the death of Christ for the redemption of sinners, even the chief of sinners; that salvation is free to all that believe; that Christ has promised to save all that believe in Him. Some have labored hard to show that the sufficiency of the atonement for the whole world of sinners is not enough to authorize a sinner to believe in Christ for salvation, but that the sinner must be assured that Christ died for him personally. But their arguments are not satisfactory, and can not be made to agree with the teachings of our Savior and His apostles; and the minister who invites a sinner to come to Christ on the ground that Christ died for him in particular, goes out of his proper line of work. Neither do I believe there is any thing in the Scriptures, either as doctrine, or in the examples of Christ and His apostles, to justify any such specific mode of exhibiting the gospel of salvation; and the preacher who adopts it subjects himself to a degree of difficult and unnecessary labor, which he may not be able to perform; for if the sinner doubts, as he often, if not always, will do, the preacher is bound to prove to the sinner’s satisfaction that Christ did die for him in particular; and in this he will seldom or never succeed. The only way in which he could hope to succeed would be by attempting to prove that Christ died for every sinner; and if he could convince the sinner of the truth of this doctrine, it would not satisfy his doubts, for he would still say, that although Christ died for all, yet thousands would be forever lost, and how could he know that himself would not be one of them! he would still be left in the dark. But if we preach Christ as the Savior of sinners: that He died for sinners; that His blood cleanses from all sin--which is easily proved--and show them from the word of God, that whoever believes in Christ as the Savior of sinners, shall have eternal life--and the Scripture proofs are abundant--the work of preaching the gospel is, in this respect, easy. We have no need to resort to theological niceties. The whole business of inviting sinners to Christ is plain, and our work is ready prepared to our hand.

If the atonement was not sufficient for any more than those who will be saved by it, it would indeed appear to be inconsistent to call upon all sinners to believe and be saved. But that doctrine of atonement which we present is liable to no such objection; for if the atonement is sufficient for all sinners, and every sinner is assured that he who trusts in this all-sufficient atonement shall be saved, what more can be necessary to authorize the universal invitations of the gospel? To bring the design of the personal application of the atonement into the gospel call, is to put it in a place where it does not belong, and where, I believe, the Scripture never puts it.

It is alleged that it is the duty of all men to believe in the atonement, and to trust in it for salvation; and if Christ did not die for all men, but for a part only, it follows that it is the duty of those for whom atonement was not made, to trust in that which is not true. Now, with all my profound respect for those who argue in this way, I must insist that their argument is radically defective. It confounds things that are different; it makes belief and trust identical, which they are not; it leaves the promise totally out of view in respect to the act of trusting, whereas reliance on the atonement, without a promise, would not be trust, but presumption. To say that it is not the duty of a sinner to believe the gospel, unless atonement was made for him, is not sound theology. No atonement was made by the death of Christ for the fallen angels, yet it is the duty of Satan to believe the doctrine of atonement; and I have no doubt that he does believe it. It is the duty of every intelligent creature under the Divine government to believe every word that God speaks. When the Almighty declared to Satan that the Seed of the woman should bruise his head, it was the duty of Satan to believe it; and I do not doubt that he did believe it, so far as he understood the import of the language. But it will be said that Satan could not trust in the mercy of the atonement, because the atonement was not made for him. It is true it was not made for him, and it was not his duty to trust in it. Neither would it be the duty of any guilty man to trust in it for life, if there had been no promise of life given to those who do believe in it. Our trust has immediate respect to the promise. If there has been an atonement made by the death of Jesus, which is in itself sufficient to satisfy for all the sins of all the human family, and God has promised eternal life to every sinner who believes in this atonement for life, it is the duty of every sinner to believe in it; and it is also the privilege and the duty of every one who does so believe to trust in the faithfulness of God to fulfill His promise. I reject the doctrine of trusting in the atonement without a promise. The promise is made to those who believe in Christ, and a sinner has no right to inquire whether the atonement was made specially for him, before be believes the promise. And for a sinner to believe that Christ died specially for him, is not what he is required to believe in order to his salvation. But it is said that the gospel call comes from God, and not merely from the minister. And this is true. Their object seems to be to defend the Divine character from the supposed inconsistency of inviting all sinners to the gospel feast, when it was designed specially for only a part. But if the provisions of the atonement were amply sufficient for all--if there is "bread enough and to spare "---the Divine character stands in no need of apology. As it is God who calls, so it is God who gives. He is the only rightful owner of the provisions, and He only has right to dispose of them; and He bestows them upon whomsoever He will, according to His good pleasure. He has made known to all the world that it is His pleasure to give the bread of life to every hungry soul that is willing to partake. The only question that can be pertinent, if God invites, is, whether he has an exclusive right to invite all, and to give eternal life to every sinner who will accept of it? "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." Shall we be told that the sinner must be assured that he is one of those whom the Father has given to the Son before He is warranted to come ? That if he is not one whom the Father gave, he can have no assurance that Christ will not cast him out? And shall he stand aloof and refuse to come till he gets positive evidence from God himself that be is verily one who was thus given, when Christ is telling him in the strongest terms that He will not cast him out? The doctrine that a man must believe that Christ died for him specially, before he has a right to take comfort and cherish hope, I regard as a pernicious doctrine. It casts a stumbling-block in the way of the coming sinner, and can not be reconciled with the Scriptures.

If the reader has not been detained upon this topic till his patience is quite exhausted, I will offer an illustration of my views in respect to the sufficiency and the design of the atonement. We will suppose that ten men of our country have committed some depredations upon a neighboring nation, to the value of ten thousand dollars, for which they are arrested and confined in prison. The ruler of that nation is willing to release all of them whenever the whole injury is repaired, but will not release any one of them till the whole amount of the damage is made good. Now, among these unhappy culprits I have two sons, whom I am resolved to redeem. To effect this object, I pay the ten thousand dollars in full, for the definite purpose of delivering these two sons; whereupon the ruler acknowledges himself satisfied, and issues his mandate to open the prison door and announce full liberty to all the prisoners. Deliverance is as free to all as it is to my two sons, for whom personally the redemption price was specially paid. Would there, then, be any inconsistency or impropriety in my telling all these prisoners that I had paid the ransom price in full of their liberty, and procured the opening of the door for all? And if I persuade and entreat them all to avail themselves of the purchased deliverance, shall it be said that I am "mocking them," "trifling with them," "tantalizing" them with vain hopes and insincere professions of good-will? Would not such an impeachment be positive slander? Any limitations or restrictions in my design in making the payment would make no limitation in the fullness or value of the payment, nor in the liberty procured by it, nor in the freeness of the proposed deliverance; neither would it pertain to any of them to inquire into the extent of my design before they would accept of the purchased benefit. The atonement of Christ is sufficient for every sinner, and is free to every one; and the benefit is promised to every one that believes. The Divine design in regard to the personal application constitutes no condition authorizing the sinner to believe, nor interfering with his privilege to believe, whether such sinner is included in that design or not.

Atonement and Intercession.

We shall now, in the last place, examine the doctrine of atonement in its relation to the intercession of Christ as our Great High Priest.

According to the line of discussion which I had marked out for myself, I might confine myself merely to the design of the atonement in respect to the persons for whom it was made. In this point of view the question would still be, whether the atonement was designed to be universal, and the design included all men, or whether it was designed for the redemption of those only who will eventually be saved by it? But there are other aspects of intercession that are highly edifying besides the particular bearing it has upon the mere extent of the atonement. The general plan of this work, take it as a whole, would seem to require that I should indite a separate chapter on the subject of Christ’s intercession. I had made up my mind, however, that I would treat of intercession in connection with atonement; but if I should confine my discussion to the single topic above stated, I could not do justice to the subject of intercession, neither would I do justice to the reasonable expectations of the Christian reader. The intercession of our Advocate with the Father is a subject so replete with spiritual instruction; so rich in sources of comfort and consolation to the believer; so well suited to impart spiritual strength to the children of God, and to establish them in the faith of the gospel; and it sheds so much light on the great plan of salvation, that to omit it in a work of this kind, or to view it in only one of its aspects, would hardly be excusable; and besides this, it would be difficult, if not impracticable, to gain clear conceptions of the subject in that one point of view without taking a more enlarged view of the general doctrine. On the other hand, it is not possible to arrive at any thing like an adequate understanding of the doctrine of intercession without considering it in connection with the atonement; for the relation between the two is so intimate, that there could be no real intercession without atonement; for intercession founded upon any thing else would resolve into mere influence, which is utterly inadmissible. An intercession of this nature would be in the highest degree derogatory to the Divine character, and would, in fact, devolve on our Redeemed a service which it would be impossible for Him to perform. But this part of the service of our High Priest is a far more noble work--a work worthy of His Divine dignity and of His high preeminence. It is a service consistent with His present glorified state, and worthy of His employment as the Son of God; a work for which He, and He alone, is every way competent, contemplating objects of infinite importance, and both requiring and insuring certain and infallible success.

It seems necessary, therefore, that we should take a more general view of the subject, and ascertain, as nearly as we may, or at least as nearly as our present object requires, what are the prime and essential characteristics of our Lord’s intercession in behalf of His people. To obtain this consideration it is necessary to inquire what the intercession of Christ is--in what does it essentially consist? And I think we have abundant data to direct our inquiries. The chief difficulty will be found in making a proper and skillful use of the materials already provided and presented to our use in the subject itself. And we have the inspired word as the test by which we may judge of the soundness and appropriate adaptation of these materials.

We shall endeavor to be as brief and concise in this discussion as the importance and utility of the doctrine will admit. We have already said that the intercession of Christ is not the exercise of any influence on the mind or disposition of the Father, inducing Him to do that for us which it is not His will and desire to do. This would be impossible. God is self-moved in every thing He does. He is in one mind, and none can turn Him. He is God, and changes not, and He will do all His pleasure. It is not possible that any thing external to Himself can exert an influence on His mind. The doctrine that the intercession of Christ is necessary, or is designed to have an influence on the Father, inducing Him to entertain gracious dispositions towards us, or to bestow favors upon us, otherwise than what is already His merciful purpose to do, involves so many absurdities, and is so degrading to the Divine character, and is so inconsistent with the sacred Scriptures, that I think it needless to enter upon a systematic refutation. And there is no necessity for an intercession of that nature. If it were not the good pleasure of our Heavenly Father to do all for our salvation which it is necessary He should do, no intercession, no entreaties, no beseeching or persuasion which could be employed by our High Priest could prevail with Him to change His course of proceedings with us. "And I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you." (John 16:26-27) There is no need that Christ should intercede with the Father to love His children, for He loves them and delights to bless them independently of intercession.

Effectual intercession, such as can be acceptable with God, must be based upon a principle of fundamental justice. It must be founded on a plea, and such a plea as will triumph over every opposing resistance that can be set against its validity and success. If such a prevailing plea can not be found in the blood of atonement, it will be in vain to seek for one elsewhere. Christ as crucified--as offered up and sacrificed for our sins on earth--is the atonement; and Christ, as having put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, is essentially the intercession in heaven. The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the atonement which cleanses us from all sin; and the same blood carried within the veil (so to speak) and sprinkled before the mercy-seat, is the plea which constitutes the intercession.

Having now taken the ground (and it is the only true and tenable ground that can be taken) that the intercession of Christ, to be successful, must be founded on a plea--or, rather, that it is the presentation of a valid and righteous plea--and that this plea is the atonement made for our sins--let us examine this plea in some of its relations and characteristics.

1. The plea, considered in its relation to God, must be perfect and competent to answer all the ends, and accomplish all the objects contemplated by the intercession. It must be well pleasing to the holiness of the Divine nature, and capable of satisfying all the demands of Divine justice, so as to demonstrate that God is just in justifying them godly. It must be such as will sustain all that the intercession itself is intended to effect. As the intercession is made to God it must be acceptable to Him, and such as He will approve in judicial administration. It must be a righteous plea, and possess in itself the element and all the virtue of a perfect righteousness; not only a plea that may prevail, but one of such efficacy that it cannotfail. And the plea which our Intercessor presents on our behalf is "the precious blood of Christ." We need not enlarge here on the merit and worth of this plea. It speaks for itself.

2. The Intercessor’s plea, in its relation to those for whom it is offered, must be competent to effect all that their necessities require. It must be infallibly efficacious to procure all the privileges and blessings that their condition and interests make necessary, and such as will effectually preclude the possibility of any exceptions. To the same extent that intercession is necessary and appropriate, so far must the efficacy and success of the plea extend and prevail; for if we allow any lameness, defect, or deficiency in the matter of the plea, the intercession founded upon the plea will accomplish nothing for us. But as the perfect atonement made by Christ is the plea of intercession, and as this atonement is already accepted in heaven, there can be no danger, nor indeed any possibility of failure, except the intercession were to be extended beyond the limits of the atonement. Those attributes of the Divine nature which make an atonement necessary, also require the ministration of an intercession; for both are related to God in the same respects, and both are related to us in the same respects. The great end for which atonement was made, in relation to us, was our salvation; and the great end for which intercession is made, in the same relation, is our complete salvation. The two are co-extensive, the one being neither more nor less extensive than the other. And this view corresponds most exactly with the typical representations of the priesthood of Aaron, which was a very significant and instructive ceremony of typical service. The blood of the sacrificial lamb, offered for sin, which made atonement at the altar of burnt-offerings, outside of the sanctuary, was applied to that altar; and the same blood was taken into the sanctuary and applied to the altar of incense, inside of the sanctuary, and was also sprinkled before the mercy-seat, which was in the most holy place, and the high priest officiated in the whole transaction; and all was done throughout for the same person, or for the same community, in whose behalf the offering was made. And, further, the end or object for which the service was performed never failed of its complete accomplishment.

3. As we are now inquiring into the nature of intercession, we should notice some of those relations in which our Intercessor stands to Him to whom the intercession is made. And this brings into view most directly and prominently the priestly office of Christ, for His intercession is comprehended within, and pertains exclusively to, his priesthood; and the office includes two branches of official service, but it is but the one work--but the one whole service. Christ must first offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin--as a whole burnt-offering for us--and then He must present Himself, with His perfect work, in the presence of God forus, as our Intercessor. Neither of these alone, independently of the other, would effect our complete salvation.

Although Christ took upon Himself this office of High Priest, with all its incumbent duties and burdens, willingly, and of His own choice, yet He did it by the appointment of the Father. (Heb. iii. 2.) He was ordained of God. (Hebrews 5:1) God glorified Him to be made a priest, and conferred on Him this high honor because He was the Son of God. (Hebrews 5:5) He was made a priest by the oath of God. (Hebrews 7:20) And was consecrated by the oath of God to an everlasting priesthood: "Thou art a priest forever." (Hebrews 7:28) Thus we see He was divinely appointed, and solemnly consecrated by God to a special official service. The Father assigned to Him His official work--a service to be rendered to God. He was ordained and consecrated to do the will of God: "Lo! I come to do Thy will." A great deal by way of legitimate inference may be deduced from these considerations, but there is one inference that is unavoidable: It is not possible that God should appoint His Son to an office, and invest Him with all its official functions, and assign to Him a work and service in that office, had He not known that His High Priest was both able and faithful to perform and finish the whole duty pertaining to the official institution. Neither would He institute an official ministration that would not be adequate to the purpose for which it was ordained; for it is not God’s method of proceeding, nor is it consistent with His infinite wisdom to choose and establish a fallible and precarious system of operation. And this inference is decisively confirmed by the Scriptures in reference to both branches of the priestly service of Christ. In regard to His atonement it is said, "By one offering He hath perfected forever them that were sanctified;" that is, those for whom the offering was made. And again: "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." And in reference to His intercession it is written, "He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." And also Jesus said to His Father, "And I knew that Thou hearest me always." I believe that no instance can be referred to where a priest of Aaron’s order officiated, whether for an individual or for the whole congregation of Israel, that the service was not completely successful, and infallibly procured the good or averted the evil for which the sacrifice was offered. The offering up of the sacrificial victim at the altar of burnt-offerings, and the application of the blood to that altar, was the type of atonement; and the priest taking the blood into the sanctuary and applying it to the altar of incense, and sprinkling it before the mercy-seat, is the type of intercession. And shall we suppose that the official priestly action of Christ is less efficacious and successful in behalf of those for whom He officiates than the merely typical transactions of a temporary and rudimental economy that could make nothing perfect, and was designed to vanish away?