Hodgson:
CHAPTER XXXV.
CALVINISM CONTINUED.
Besides these subtleties on ability, certain distinctions on the atonement have been resorted to, for the same purpose. There is so obvious an inconsistency in offering salvation to all, on the supposition that Christ did not die for all, that the man who ventures to connect these in the pulpit is more likely to excite contempt than to commend himself to the conscience. This is felt by Calvinists. Hence they distinguish between the atonement and the application of it–between atonement and redemption–between the sufficiency of the atonement and its efficiency.
Two or three examples may suffice. The first we shall select from Mr. Payne’s Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, referred to at the commencement of our discussions. He affirms that,
while, on the one hand, the Savior cannot have intended to secure the salvation of all men by the act of offering himself up a sacrifice for sin; yet that the sacrifice must, on the one hand, have been in itself adequate to the salvation of all men, so as to become a suitable foundation for the general and unlimited calls of the gospel. There is a broad line of distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ and its efficiency, or rather, as I would say, the sovereign purpose of the sacred three, in reference to its efficiency; that is, in reference to the exertion of that holy influence upon the minds of men, which secures to them the enjoyment of the blessings which flow through the channel of the atonement. It may be true (whether it is or not we shall inquire presently, my present object is merely to illustrate the difference between the two things) that Jehovah did not intend to put forth that influence which would render the atonement the means of securing the salvation of all men; though, as it was to become the basis of moral government, it was essential that it should be of infinite worth, and so in itself adequate to the salvation of all men. This I have long regarded as the true state of the case.–p. 209.
Again,
If the question be ‘Did Christ die with the design of laying a foundation of salvation for all men, or for some men?’ I answer, that, in this sense, he died for all men. If the question be ‘Did he die with the design of rendering the means effectual to the salvation of all men, or of some men?’ I answer, that, in this sense, he died for some men only.
I believe in the unlimited, universal, infinite sufficiency of the atonement of Christ–I believe it was the intention of God, as the moral Governor, in giving his Son as a sacrifice for sin, to provide a general remedy commensurate with the disease. I believe, on the other hand, in the limited application of the atonement. I believe it was the intention of God, as a sovereign, to render the remedy effectual, by special and sovereign influence, in the case of certain individuals only who are affected with the general disease, so that the intention of God as a sovereign, and as a ruler, in reference to the atonement, is different, the one being general, the other particular.–Ibid.
We have the sentiments of Dr. Cox, on this subject, in the appendix to his work on Quakerism. He remarks,
In modern technology (which I approve) they only are said to be redeemed who are actually accepted in Christ: for all, atonement is made; to all, it is offered; the Spirit striving through the truth as extensively as the sufficiency and applicability of the atonement are extensive. Still, to accept the offer and correspond with the offerer, is, in. the very nature of things, the only way to be saved. Are all men saved? Yes–if all repent and believe the gospel! Do they all this? He that believes men are saved in sin, or that all men renounce it, must have very strong faith! We, however, do not believe that the atonement was indefinite, in the sense of the Remonstrants of Holland, or any other Arminians. God had a design in making it, which no event could frustrate. Christ eternally designed the salvation of the elect; and for these, in this sense exclusively, he gave his precious life. But this makes not the atonement less full, or alters its nature at all.–p. 667.
The reader will readily perceive, that, notwithstanding all that is said in these passages of a ” full,” “unlimited,” “universal” atonement, the writers hold most tenaciously to the great Calvinistic principle, which limits the provision for salvation to a definite and favored number. The atonement was adequate to the salvation of all men. It justifies the general and unlimited calls of the gospel. But it is not indefinite, in the sense in which Arminians understand it, which, we apprehend, is the sense in which it is generally understood. Christ eternally designed the salvation of the elect; and for them, in this sense exclusively, (in the sense of designing their salvation,) he gave his precious life. ” The Savior cannot have intended to secure the salvation of all men,” &c. “It was the intention of God to render the remedy effectual in the ease of certain individuals only.” “The atonement was for all, but the elect only are said to be redeemed.”