Shedd:

1) 2. Revision is objectionable, because the Confession is a correct statement of ” the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures.” The system meant in this phrase is universally known as the Calvinistic; not as resting upon the authority of Calvin, but as a convenient designation of that interpretation of Scripture which is common to Augustine, Calvin, the Reformed theologians, and the Westminster divines. The term “evangelical” does not define it, because there are several evangelical systems, but only one Calvinistic. The systems of Arminius, of Wesley, and of the Later-Lutherans, as well as that of Calvin, are alike evangelical, in distinction from anti-evangelical systems like Socinianism and Deism. They are all alike derived from the Bible, and contain the doctrines of the trinity, the incarnation, the apostasy, and the redemption But the Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture, which is the one formulated in the Westminster Standards, differs from these other “evangelical” systems, in teaching unconditional election and preterition, instead of conditional; limited redemption (not atonement) instead of unlimited; regeneration wholly by the Holy Spirit instead of partly; the total inability of the sinner instead of partial. The Calvinistic system, as thus discriminated from the other “evangelical” systems, has been adopted by American Presbyterians for two centuries. Neither Old Lights, nor New Lights; neither Old School, nor New School; have demanded that these tenets which distinguish Calvinism from Arminianism should be eliminated from the creed. They were accepted with equal sincerity by both branches of the Church in the reunion of 1870, and there is no reason for altering the formulas that were satisfactory then, unless the belief of the Church has altered in regard to these distinctive points of Calvinism. William G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 14-15. See also: William G.T. Shedd, The Proposed Revision of the Westminster Standards, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1890), 15.  [Underlining mine.]

2) The question, What is Calvinism? is mainly one of reasoning and discrimination. It relates to a matter of fact. This question will answer itself in the discussion now going on; for this theological system possesses as distinctive features as the Copernican astronomy, and it will be as impossible to confuse and unsettle the religious world respecting the former, as it would be to confuse and unsettle the scientific world respecting the latter. The essential parts of this system are the well-known five points of Calvinism, namely, total depravity in distinction from partial; unconditional election in distinction from conditional; irresistible regenerating grace in distinction from resistible; limited redemption (not atonement) in distinction from universal; the certain perseverance of the regenerate in distinction from their possible apostasy. No one of these points can be rejected without impairing the integrity of Calvinism, any more than one of the points of the mariners’ compass can be omitted and the scheme be complete; any more than one of the contrary five points of Arminianism can be deleted and the theory remain unaltered. William G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 153-154.  [Underlining mine.]

3) Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God, and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term “redemption,”  consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of “atonement,” and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application. William G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1971), 2:470.  [Underlining mine.]

[Note: For more on Shedd on unlimited atonement, go here.]

Weeks:

A[spasio]. I have mentioned the principal; but I will suggest one more, the identity of atonement and redemption. As they signify the same thing, all who are atoned for are redeemed. But the elect only are redeemed; therefore the atonement was made for none else.

P[aulinus]. Atonement and redemption are not the same thing. Atonement is satisfaction for sin; redemption is deliverance from sin. The atonement was finished when Christ rose from the dead; but the redemption of any individual is not finished till he is freed from sin by complete sanctification, and received to heaven. Christ is said to have “obtained eternal redemption for us;” not eternal atonement, surely. The apostle exhorts Christians, ” Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption;” not the day of atonement, for that was past already. And when the Son of Man shall be seen coming in the clouds of heaven, his people are exhorted, “Then look up, and lift up your heads: for your redemption draws nigh;” not your atonement draws nigh, for that was accomplished long since. If atonement and redemption were the same thing, it would be as improper to pray for redemption 11.1 for atonement. To pray for atonement would be to pray that Christ might die again. ‘No Christian prays for atonement. But Christians may pray for redemption. They may pray with the Scripture saints, ” Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it.” “Redeem me, and be merciful unto me.” Atonement and redemption, therefore, are different things; and the argument which is built upon their identity is built upon the sand.

William R. Weeks, “A Dialogue on the Atonement,” in The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises, ed., Edwards A. Park, (Boston: Congregational Board of Publications, 1868), 579. [First published in 1825.]  [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

[Note: Once again, it is not necessary, or the point, that one has to agree with everything Weeks says on the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, it is  his distinction between atonement and redemption–the former being universal, the latter particular–which interests us here.]

M.B. Riddle:

1) The germ of the controversy was the position attributed to Dr. Taylor, “that no human being can become depraved but by his own act, and that the sinfulness of the race does not pertain to man’s nature.” In connection with this, regeneration was regarded as the act of man’s own will or heart; and the primary cause of this right choice was found in self-love, or a desire for the greatest happiness. (Some of these positions have been disclaimed by Dr. Taylor and his friends.) He claimed to be in accord with the New England Calvinism, represented by the two Edwardses, Bellamy, Hopkins, and Dwight. His position on the doctrine of original sin was not Augustinian: over against Dr. Taylor he asserted depravity of nature and the federal headship of Adam, but did not accept immediate imputation. He denied the self-determining power of the will, or the power of a contrary choice, and would not limit the definition of sin to voluntary transgression of known law. He accepted the distinction of Edwards between natural and moral ability, and denied most resolutely the “happiness theory.” By discriminating between an unlimited atonement and limited redemption, he sought to preserve the doctrine of individual election. Regeneration he regarded as “effected, not by moral suasion, or by the efficiency of any means whatever, but by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, changing the moral disposition, and imparting a new spiritual life to the soul.” The controversy, as was usual at that time, was carried on with speculative and dogmatic weapons, though both parties appealed to Scripture.     M.B. Riddle, “Tyler, Bennet,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, [1912] ), 12:46.

Nahum Gale (1812-1876):

2) To those who entertain this opinion, I would commend the following extract from an article in the Princeton Review for July, 1831. The orthodoxy of this work will not be questioned….

Again,–the founders of this seminary believed that the only ground of pardon and salvation to sinners, is the atonement of Christ, and that Christ, by his obedience and death, honored the divine law, satisfied divine justice, and thus rendered it consistent for God to pardon sinners who repent and believe in Christ. They repudiated the theory that the sufferings and death of Christ were intended only to exert a moral influence on the minds of men. They believed that his sufferings were truly vicarious; that he suffered in the room and stead of sinners, 80 that the demands of justice are as fully answered in the case of those who repent and are pardoned, as in the case of those who remain impenitent and are destroyed. They believed that the atonement is of infinite value; that it is sufficient to expiate the sins of all men; and that, on the ground of it, pardon and eternal life are sincerely offered to the whole human race. They did not believe that Christ died for all men, with a design to save all, or to do all in his power to save them. But they believed that he died for all in such a sense as to render it consistent and proper for God to invite all men to come to Christ and be saved, and to make it apparent that those who perish are justly condemned, not only for transgressing the law, but for rejecting the gospel. They made a distinction between atonement and redemption. The former they considered unlimited, the latter limited. Redemption, they supposed, included the application of the atonement, in the sinner’s effectual calling; and they supposed, of course, that none but the elect are actually redeemed. They believed that the only ground of the sinner’s justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is received by faith alone.

They believed that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and that regeneration is effected, not by moral suasion, or by the efficiency of any means whatever, but by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, changing the moral disposition, and imparting a new spiritual life to the soul. They believed this to be a sovereign work, and that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy.

They believed that those who are made the subjects of renewing grace, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that they are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation.

They believed that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, a day of final judgment, and a state of eternal and unalterable retribution for the righteous and the wicked.

These are the prominent doctrines which were held by the founders of this seminary, and for the maintenance of which the Institute was established. They are embodied in the creed to which all the trustees and professors are required annually to give their assent.

That I have given a true exposition of their creed, I feel a good degree of assurance, having been somewhat intimately acquainted with the men. A goodly number of them are still living, and to them I confidently appeal as witnesses of the truth of my representations.      Gale, Nahum, A Memoir of Rev. Bennet Tyler, (Boston: J.E. Tilton and Company, 1860), 74, 77-79.  [Underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) I am still in the process of tracking down the original article as cited by Gale. 2) When referencing the seminary, Gale means the newly founded Theological Instituted, of which Bennet Tyler was the principal founder. This seminary later became the Hartford Seminary. 3) When Gale speaks of the faculty, he, therefore, refers to Bennet along with the rest of the faculty.]

Welch:

If it should stop here, and no sinner improve the amnesty offered, or accept the grace provided, yet divine law would have been honored and divine justice vindicated and great grace and love revealed in Christ before the view of the whole universe.

But this does not exhaust the divine love and wisdom in the scheme of Redemption. If it should stop here, there would be no salvation realized. Though there had been mediatorial suffering and divine amnesty proclaimed, either all would be redeemed by the pardoning act of God still unregenerate and still unsaved, or none would be redeemed because of the sinful and rebellious choice of man. But Redemption is not thus to be actualized or completed in every case by the pardoning act of God; nor is it thus to fail in every case because of the sinful and rebellious choice of man. There shall be the actualized redemption of a great company which no man can number. The Atonement–the expiatory sacrifice even unto death–has been effected; Redemption shall be. The real history of Redemption (not yet completed), and the doctrine imbedded in it, lie before us surveyed by the inspired Word unto completeness, even unto “the day of the Lord.”

What is this larger thought, this climactic doctrine which Biblical usage with inspired precision distinguishes from that of the Atonement? For there is, as Dr. A. A. Hodge (“The Atonement,” p. 42) well says,–”There is unquestionably a distinction to be carefully observed between these words Atonement and Redemption in their Biblical usage–the latter being more comprehensive and less definite–commenced now, it will be consummated at a future day.” “Atonement signalizes only the expiation of our guilt by Christ’s vicarious sufferings” (p. 249).

The terms redeem and redemption are employed about one hundred and forty times in the Scriptures; but they appear in very different words–Hebrew and Greek-from those expressing atone and atonement, viz., gaal and padah (in varied forms) in Hebrew; and agoradzo and lutroo (in varied forms) in Greek. The larger and completed thought conveyed in Redemption is, deliverance–real, actual deliverance, from the penalty and the power of sin–from its guilt and dominion; a deliverance not fully effected in Regeneration, but approximating in the progressive work of sanctification, and culminating in complete salvation from all evil of body, soul, and spirit. The growth of this thought toward its fullness may be traced in such Scriptures as Col. i. 14; I Peter i. 18; Rom. viii. 23 i Eph. iv. 30; 1 Cor. i. 30; Titus ii. 14. The Redemption thus being wrought out for us, is-must be–in its very nature personal and particular, thus illustrating and actualizing the” election in grace.” Though often confounded for want of precision in language or in conception, these words are distinct and distinguished in Scripture, thus indicating the different and larger thought in the latter.

In the history of Redemption we find the doctrine of the Atonement, its definition and place. The Scriptural representation is that the expiatory offering–the Atonement–meets the penalty of sin and covers the guilty from the search of avenging justice, thus procuring pardon or deliverance from condemnation. It is of God’s love through Christ, and opens the way for conditional blessings immeasurable, even the fullness of Redemption. Though it secures pardon, it does not remove the pollution of sin. It is preliminary to Sanctification and indispensable, yet it does not produce sanctification. It is a preliminary requisite to Regeneration, yet it does not produce regeneration. There is a new and additional agency necessary to effect this, even the agency of the Holy Spirit. To him belongs this divine office-work….

In accordance with the immediate end thus secured, says Dr. R., “Christ’s death opened the way for God to show mercy. It removed the impediment which existed antecedent to the fact of an atonement, and which but for this fact would have forever barred the door of salvation to mankind. The death of Christ rendered the salvation of all possible, so far as the atonement was concerned. As an expiatory offering it was all-sufficient (infinite) in satisfying Divine justice; for effecting the immediate end (e. g., to declare God’s righteousness, to maintain God’s law, and to condemn sin) it was complete. In this view it was precisely the same thing, as it stood related to the elect and the non-elect. The sacrificial service was one and the same, appointed by the same authority and for the same immediate purpose, and performed by the same glorious Personage at the very same time. It wanted nothing to constitute it a true and perfect sacrifice for sin, as it stood related to the whole world. It was but this true and perfect sacrifice, as it stood related to the elect. Any other view would have overturned its sufficiency for all mankind; for it was not the sufficiency of Christ to be a sacrifice, but his sufficiency as a sacrifice for the whole world, that was maintained….

The Atonement is all-sufficient, and, in its very nature, unlimited, since the God-man, the suffering Savior, is an infinite sacrifice. Redemption implies regeneration and the other doctrines of grace, actualized in the soul’s experience through the effectual working of the Holy Ghost, and issuing in the soul’s salvation. It must, therefore, in the very nature of the case, be personal anti particular.

Ransom B. Welch, “Rev. Dr. James Richards and his Theology.–II,” The Presbyterian Review 5 (1884) : 415-417, 421-422, and 433-434.  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]