[The reader should be sure to peruse the relevant footnotes for explicit comments]

Brown:

Sins of the World:

1) The last of these analogies is more strongly expressed in the original than in our translation–”So Christ, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear the second time, without sin, to them who look for Him for salvation.” Christ was offered as a sacrificial victim for the purpose of “bearing the sins of many.” The “many” here are the same as the “many sons”–His “brethren”–those who should be “heirs of salvation,” for every one of whom, “by the grace of God, He tasted death.”¹ To bear their sins, is just to be charged with their guilt or obligation to punishment, and to undergo the consequence of being thus charged with their guilt. God “made to meet on His head,” as the great sacrificial victim, “the iniquity of them all.” The consequence was, “exaction was made, and He became answerable. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He put Him to grief; and His soul was made an offering for sin.” Now, having offered Himself a sacrifice, and having thus presented an offering of infinite value, “He has entered into the holiest of all, into heaven itself”–as men, having once died, go into the separate state; and there He will abide till the mystery of God be finished. He will no more return to our world to suffer and die. He will indeed appear again, as men who have once died will live again; but as they will live again, not again to die, but to be judged, so He will appear again, not to expiate the sins, but to complete the salvation, of His people. “Christ will appear a second time” in our world. This is very plainly stated in Scripture. “This same Jesus,” said the angels to the disciples while “they stood gazing up into heaven,” after their Lord had disappeared in the clouds, “who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” This coming is very often spoken of in the New Testament, represented as one of the grand objects of the Christian’s hope; and the time of its arrival is represented as the period of their complete deliverance.

When He is a second time manifested in our world. He shall be “without sin.” In one sense lie was ”without sin” when he appeared the first time. “Without sin” has often been interpreted, ‘without a sin–offering’–’not as a sin–offering, not for the purpose of again presenting Himself in sacrifice.’ That is substantially the meaning; but I rather think “sin” is here used as it is in the preceding clause of the verse: to “bear the sins of many,” is to bear their guilt. When He came the first time, the sins of all his people, the sins of the whole world, were laid on Him; but now He will come without sin. He has borne, and borne away these sins by His one sacrifice–”He has put away sin.” There is no more remaining to be borne by Him–He appears not for expiation, but for salvation. John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1862), 1:429-431. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified to run consecutively; italics original; and underlining mine.]

2) Let us now, secondly, consider his statement with regard to efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ offered by Himself, and applied to all who believe. “The blood of Christ purges your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.” The blood of Christ is the blood which He shed, when by His death on the cross He finished the great sacrifice which He came to offer for the sins of mankind. This blood is in the text represented as “sprinkled” on the conscience. The conscience is the soul, the spiritual part of our nature, the inner man. It is obvious, then, that the language must be figurative. The soul can neither be sprinkled with blood nor washed with water. It is not, however, difficult to perceive at once the meaning and the fitness of the metaphorical representation. It was by sprinkling the blood of the animal sacrifices under the law on the individual for whom they were offered, that that individual became personally possessed of the advantage to obtain which they were offered,–that is, deliverance from the ceremonial guilt and defilement which prevented him from drawing near to God in the temple along with His people. Now the question is, What is it under the new covenant which answers to this’ How is a man interested in the expiatory, justifying, sanctifying efficacy of the sacrifice which Christ Jesus finished on the cross by pouring out His blood, His life, His soul unto death? An answer to that question will explain what the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the conscience, so as to cleanse it from dead works, is. The priest who offered the sacrifice, sprinkled the blood on those for whom it was offered; and it is the work of the great High Priest of our profession to sprinkle His own blood on the conscience. Let us translate these figures into literal language. By the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit, Christ leads the individual so to apprehend the meaning and evidence of the truth respecting His sacrifice, exhibited in the Gospel revelation, as that, according to the arrangements of the new covenant, he becomes personally interested in the blessings obtained by that sacrifice. The expiatory, justifying, sanctifying influences of the atonement are thus shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost given us; the man is pardoned, and accepted, and sanctified; the conscience is thus “purged from dead works.” John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1862), 2:341-342. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified to run consecutively; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Pendleton:

1)

IV. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

This topic, if considered in all its amplitude, would embrace the atonement in its relations to the universe. That it sustains such relations is entirely credible, but we are specially concerned with its relation to God and men. In this view the subject is one of deep personal interest to all the human race. As to the sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of the world, there can be no doubt and there need be no controversy. If as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of Christ’s person, and if his dignity results by a sublime necessity from his divinity, it is a grand impertinence to attempt to limit its sufficiency. So far as the claims of law and justice are concerned, the atonement has obviated every difficulty in the way of any sinner’s salvation. In supplying a basis for the exercise of mercy in one instance it supplies a basis for the exercise of mercy in innumerable instances. It places the world, to use the language of Robert Hall, “in a salvable state.” It makes salvation an attainable object. That is, all men, in consequence of the atonement, occupy a position where saving influences can reach them. There is no natural impossibility in the way of their salvation. If it be asked why all men are not saved, I reply, The answer is not to be sought in the atonement, but in the culpable unwillingness of sinners to be saved. Here the question is to be left, and here it ought always to have been left.

The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the world’s salvation, is the only basis on which can consistently rest the universal invitations of the gospel. On this point I cannot express my views so well as Andrew Fuller has done in the following language: “It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might he made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to he reconciled to God from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non-elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Woods:

LECTURE LXXXI.

IS THE ATONEMENT GENERAL, OR PARTICULAR?

11. Was the atonement general, or particular; universal, or limited? In other words; was the atonement provided for all men, or only for a part ? Did Christ die for the whole world, or only for the elect?

This question, as generally stated and discussed, has the attribute of remarkable indefiniteness and ambiguity; and hence it is adapted to create a warm and fruitless controversy–a controversy which may very easily be continued, as long as men can be found who take pleasure in strife. But the controversy may, I think, be quickly brought to a conclusion, if men will cherish a real desire to be agreed, and will take pains to understand one another, and especially if they will be content to make the Scriptures their guide.

In the discussion of this subject, we should do all we can to exclude logomachy, to prevent a needless expense of time, and to bring ourselves in the shortest way to the most satisfactory result. In order to this, let us see how many things we can lay out of the question, and so reduce the discussion to the most simple and intelligible form, and to the narrowest compass. In pursuance of this plan, let me say that the point at issue is not, whether the atonement was so provided for all men, that all will actually be saved. As the controversy, so long agitated among evangelical Christians respecting the extent of the atonement, does not relate to the question of universal salvation, this point is to be wholly excluded from the discussion. Those who are enlisted in this controversy, are united in the belief, that salvation will not be actually experienced by all men. So that the question whether Christ died for all men is to be understood as entirely distinct from the question whether he will actually save all.

Again. The point at issue is not, whether God actually intended or determined to save all men. Those who manage this controversy are united in the belief, that it is the purpose or determination of God to save only a part of the human race. The parties then agree that Christ did not die for all men in such a sense, that they will all actually obtain forgiveness through his blood; and they agree too that he did not die for all men with a purpose or determination actually to save all.

There are other points also, which we shall find it easy to dispose of satisfactorily, if we take pains to avoid obscurity in our thoughts and in our language, and to place the subject in a clear and distinct light.

One of these points is whether Christ died for his chosen people absolutely or unconditionally?

It is difficult to give a direct answer to this question, merely because it is difficult to know exactly what is meant by it. If the meaning is, whether Christ by his death so purchased or procured salvation for his chosen people, that nothing else is necessary and nothing ever to be admitted, as a meritorious cause or ground of their forgiveness; the answer is easy. Christ’s death is a perfect cause or ground of our forgiveness. So far as merit is concerned, our righteousness, our good works are not needed, nay, they are expressly excluded from having any influence. Those

Read the rest of this entry »

Bergius:

1) Q. 38. But the quickening virtue, and the purgation of our sins, is ascribed to the flesh and blood of Christ; which is indeed a divine property.

A. The quickening Virtue and Purgation of our sins is ascribed to the flesh and blood of Christ, not as an essential property of the Deity, but as the virtue and fruit of his sufferings, which is the perfect propitiatory sacrifice which he gave for the life of the World, by which God purges us from sin and quickens us. But therefore is it the perfect propitiatory sacrifice, because it is not the flesh and blood of a mere man, but of the son of God himself, and because he gave it and shed it for us, in perfect love and obedience. And it is as much as to say, “My flesh gives life to the world, that is, thereby the world receives life, for that I came from Heaven, and took true flesh of man upon me, and gave it for the life of the world.” The blood of the Son of God cleanses us from all sin, that is, hereby have we cleansing from all our sins, that the Son of God has shed his own blood for us.    Johannes Bergius, The Pearle of Peace & Concord. Or A Treatise of Pacification Betwixt the dissenting Churches of Christ, (London: Printed by T.C. For John Rothwell, at the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-side; and John Wright, at the Kings Head in the Old Bayly 1655), 35-36. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) Q. 49. But what do they accuse your doctrine for?

A. They charge us that we [the Reformed] as if we teach, First, that God did not will at all the Salvation of all men, but has chosen some few merely of his won will and pleasure without any respect of their belief or unbelief to salvation, and rejected the rest and the greatest part of men to damnation. So that the Elect if they live so wickedly, yet must be saved; but that the rejected, if they never so piously, yet must be dammed…

4. [And] that it was not at all the will of God, that Christ should suffer and die for all men, but only for some certain persons, namely the elect.    Johannes Bergius, The Pearle of Peace & Concord. Or A Treatise of Pacification Betwixt the dissenting Churches of Christ, (London: Printed by T.C. For John Rothwell, at the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-side; and John Wright, at the Kings Head in the Old Bayly 1655), 49 and 50. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; square bracketed inserts mine; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »