[comments below]

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.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Review:

MERCY FOR ALL; or, the. Great Propitiation for Man. An Argument and an Appeal.
London: Ward and Co., Paternoster-row.

AN American production, small in compass, but grand and comprehensive in its grasp. It is written in no gold. leaf letters, but in characters of living fire.
The aim of the author ill to set forth the atonement of Christ in all its unconfined fulness of grace and virtue; but while he luxuriates in the fact that the provision of Divine mercy on behalf of man ill, from the very nature of the case, unlimited and illimitable, he yet restricts its results to the positive enjoyment of that redemption which ill the mighty boon of those only who believe. In his own words:—

There is a distinction to be always carefully maintained between the work of atonement and the work of redemption. The one does not necessarily imply the other; redemption includes atonement, but it includes more; it includes its actual results; it is the application of the atonement issuing in final and complete salvation. The one, therefore, in its nature may be more extensive than the other. An unredeemed sinner has even now a deep interest in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and, whether eventually lost or saved. will feel that interest through the ages of his deathless being. With this understanding, redemption certainly is not general; and to affirm that it is limited is but stating the plainly revealed fact, that all men will not be saved.

In the new which we take of the subject, moreover, we separate the nature of the atonement from any secret unrevealed purpose of the Infinite mind respecting its application. We do not deny the existence of such a purpose; so far from it that we cannot conceive of an intelligent, all-wise Being acting in anything without design, and we cannot, without detracting from the honor and glory of Him who is no less wise than holy in all His works, suppose otherwise than that in this great plan, and I may add effort, of forgiving mercy, He had in view some certain specific results. We do not believe that the issue of the atonement is in the Infinite Mind an open question. The results of a Redeemer’s work are not contingent results. They are absolutely certain. It ill fixed, unalterably fixed, that the Savior is to be rewarded for his life of toil and ignominy, and his death of shame and agony. He is to ‘see of the travail of his soul ad to be satisfied;’ and a multitude greater than any man can number, of those ‘who have washed their robes, and made them while in the blood of the Lamb,’ sha1l give grace and glory to His triumph. But the ultimate design of the atonement, as it exists in the mind of God is a very different thing from the nature of the atonement itself as it is spread out before our view upon the pages of revealed truth. The question before us is not what God intends to accomplish by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; not how far the efficacy of that sacrifice will, in point of fact, reach; for upon these questions God has thrown a veil of impenetrable darkness; but what is the great moral, revea1ed purpose of the atonement? what ill its intrinsic value and sufficiency? how far is it available in its own nature to the salvation of man? Did God mean to spread it over only a put, or the whole of the race? Are men, all men, as lost sinners, so interested in the atoning death of Jesus Christ that they may, if they will, be saved by it! This is the question, and we unhesitatingly take the affirmative. Our position is, that through the sacrifice of Christ God can be just, and yet forgive. Such is the character of the atonement, that ‘it would comport with the glory of the Divine character, the sustentation of God’s government, the obligation and honor of His law, and the good of the rational and moral system, to save all men, provided they are accepted of Christ.’ ‘Every legal bar and obstruction in the way of the salvation of all men is removed.’ Such is the nature and efficacy of the atonement of the Son of God, that the relations not merely of some men, but of the entire race, are totally different from what they would have been, had the Savior never suffered and died; different, I mean, in this sense, that since this great atoning sacrifice has been offered, God can upon the ground of it consistency pardon the sins of all, and nothing now shuts a man out from forgiveness and hope but his own unwillingness to accept of the offers of mercy made to him in the gospel. Such is the view of the fullness of the atonement which we desire to advocate, and which we would fain commend to the intelligent faith of our hearers.

Christianity addresses itself to the intelligence as well as to the faith of man. Being a revelation of the Infinite Mind, it must be in harmony with universal reason. But if reason has become blinded and perverted, as is the case with man, then it speaks to his heart as well as to his intellect. It meets him on the ground of his moral consciousness, and tells him how a Savior has been provided for him in his far-off distance from God; how expiation has been made for his sins; how the path has been laid open for his return; and how from the lowest depth of his misery he may rise into perfect life and endless joy. Of these facts the little tractate now before us is a successful exposition, which we cordially recommend to all our readers.

Review of Mercy For All; or the Great Propitiation sufficient for man. An Argument and an Appeal (London: Ward and Co., Paternoster-Row), The Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle 32 (1854) : 648-649 (New Series). [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; and underlining mine.] [Note: According to Worldcat, only two cataloged copies of this work are available, and they are both in the UK.]

Lawrence:

The Atonement is a provision of salvation. and as such is co-extensive in its sufficiency, with human sin. Redemption is the application of the atonement, or the actual salvation of those who believe, the one being provisional and unlimited, the other being actual and limited by election and regeneration.¹

E.A. Lawrence, “Leonard Woods,” The Congregational Quarterly 1 (1859) : 521.

______________________

¹Works, Vo1. 2. pp.499-527.

Mason:

In defining my own position, and stating what I consider to be the scriptural truth upon the subject, I must be permitted to exhibit what I consider to be the true state of the question, so as to prevent all possibility of misconception.

There is, I apprehend, a distinction to be always carefully maintained, between the work of atonement and the work of redemption. The one does not necessarily imply the other; redemption includes atonement, but it includes more; it includes its actual results; it is the application of the atonement issuing in final and complete salvation. The one, therefore, in its nature may be more extensive than the other. An unredeemed sinner has. even now a deep interest in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and whether eventually lost or saved, will feel that interest through the ages of his deathless being. With this understanding, redemption certainly is not general; and to affirm that it is limited is but stating the plainly revealed fact, that all men will not be saved.

In the view which we take of the subject, moreover, we separate the nature of the atonement from any secret unrevealed purpose of the infinite mind respecting its application. We do not deny the existence of such a purpose; so far from it that we cannot conceive of an intelligent, all-wise being acting in anything without design, and we cannot, without detracting from the honor and glory of him who is no less wise than holy in all his works, suppose otherwise than that in this great plan, and I may add effort of forgiving mercy, he had in view some certain, specific results. We do not believe that the issue of the atonement is in the infinite mind an open question. The results of a Redeemer’s work are not contingent results. They are absolutely certain. It is fixed, unalterably fixed, that the Savior is to be rewarded for his life of toil and ignominy, and his death of shame and agony. He is to “see of the travail of his soul and to be satisfied;” and a multitude greater than any man can number, of those who “have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” shall give grace and glory to his triumph. But the ultimate design of the atonement as it exists in the mind of God is a very different thing from the nature of the atonement itself, as it is spread out before our view upon the pages of revealed truth. The question before us is not, what God intends to accomplish by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; not how far the efficacy of that sacrifice will in point of fact reach; for upon these questions God has thrown a veil of impenetrable darkness; but what is the great moral, revealed purpose of the atonement; what is its intrinsic value and sufficiency; how far is it available in its own nature to the salvation of men? Did God mean to spread it over only a part, or the whole of the race? Are men, all men, as lost sinners, so interested in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, that they may, if they will, be saved by it? This is the question, and we unhesitatingly take the affirmative. Our position is, that through the sacrifice of Christ, God can be just, and yet forgive. Such is the character of the atonement, that, “it would comport with the glory of the divine character, the sustentation of God’s government, the obligation and honor of his law, and the good of the rational and moral system, to save all men, provided they accepted of Christ.” “Every legal bar and obstruction in the way of the salvation of all men is removed.”¹ Such is the nature and efficacy of the atonement of the Son of God, that the relations not merely of some men, but of the entire race, are totally different from what they would have been, had the Savior never suffered and died; different, I mean, in this sense, that since this great atoning sacrifice has been offered, God can upon the ground of it consistently pardon the sins of all, and nothing now shuts a man out from forgiveness and hope, but his own unwillingness to accept of the offers of mercy made to him in the gospel. Such is the view of the fullness of the atonement which we desire to advocate, and which we would fain commend to the intelligent faith of our hearers.

Erskine Mason, “Extent of the Atonement,” in A Pastor’s Legacy Being Sermons on Practical Subjects (New York: Charles Scribner, 1853), 274-276. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

________________________

¹Associate Reformed Synod’s Report, p. 53.