There is one other series of texts in which, as we freely admit, the universal bearing on mankind at large, of the exhibition of the cross, and the proclamation of the gospel, is graciously and gloriously attested. These are such as John i. 29, iii. 16, iv. 42, xii. 32; 1 John iv. 14. Generally, these passages coincide, in substance, with those of the class first cited, which assert the indiscriminate applicability of Christ’s work, without respect of persons, or distinction of “Jew or Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free;” and they equally, with the former, fall under the remark of Professor Moses Stuart, in the extract which we have given from his book. But they seem to go a little farther; and having respect, not to the design and efficacy of the atonement, in its accomplishment and application, nor even, strictly speaking, to its sufficiency, but solely to the discovery which, as a historical transaction, it is fitted to make of the divine character—especially of the divine compassion and benevolence—they are to be regarded as giving intimation of the widest possible universality.

This is particularly the case in that most blessed statement: “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 we would be little disposed to qualify or explain away the term “world,” as here employed. We rather rejoice in this text, as asserting that the gospel has a gracious aspect to the world, or to mankind, as such. “God so-loved the world”—that is, of mankind in opposition to angels—mankind as such, without reference to elect or non-elect; the giving of his Son was a display of goodwill towards men. Let it be observed, however, that even here nothing is said about God’s giving his Son for all; on the contrary, the very terms in which the gift of his Son is described, imply a limitation of it to them that believe; on which limitation, indeed, depends the fulness of the blessing conveyed by it. The design of Christ’s death is very pointedly restricted, as to its extent, to them that believe; while, on that very account, this gift of God is amplified, and expanded, and stretched out, in regard to the amount of benefit intended to be communicated, so as to take in not only escape from perishing, but the possession of everlasting life. It is the gift of his Son, with this limited design, which is represented as being an index and measure of his love to the world at large, or to mankind as such; and it is so, through the manifestation which the cross gives to all alike and indiscriminately, of what it is in the mind and heart of God to do for a race of guilty sinners. As to any farther meaning in that text, it can only be this: that it is a testimony to the priority or precedency of God’s love to man, as going before, and not following from, the mediation and work of Christ. We speak, of course, of the order of nature and causation, not of the order of time. In the counsels of eternity there can be no comparing of dates: but it is important to adjust the connection of sequence or dependence between the love of God to man, and the work of Christ for man, as cause and effect, respectively. And one main object of this statement of our Lord undoubtedly is, to represent the Father’s good-will to men as the source and origin of the whole scheme of salvation, in opposition to the false and superstitious idea of God’s kindness being, as it were, purchased and reluctantly extorted by the interposition of one more favourable and friendly than himself, to our guilty and perishing world.

Robert Candlish, An Inquiry into the Completeness of the Atonement with Especial Reference to the Universal Offer of the Gospel, and the Universal Obligation to be believe, (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1845), preface, 25-27.

R.L. DABNEY

Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect alone:

1) But the arguments which we adduced on the affirmative side of the question demonstrate that Christ’s redeeming work was limited in intention to the elect. The Arminian dogma that He did the same redeeming work in every respect for all is preposterous and unscriptural. But at the same time, if the Calvinistic scheme be strained as high as some are inclined, a certain amount of justice will be found against them in the Arminian objections. Therefore, in mediis tutissime ibis . The well known Calvinistic formula, that “Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the Elect,” must be taken in a sense consistent with all the passages of Scripture which are cited above. Dabney, Lectures, 527.

The sufferings of Christ of equal value to all the guilt of the world:

1) Christ Suffered the
very Penalty.

The Reformed assert then, that Christ made penal satisfaction, by suffering the very penalty demanded by the law of sinners. In this sense, we say even idem fecit.

The identity we assert is, of course, not a numerical one, but a generic one. If we are asked, how this could be, when Christ was not holden forever of death, and experienced none of the remorse, wicked despair, and subjective pollution, attending a lost sinner’s second death? We reply: the same penalty, when poured out on Him, could not work all the detailed results, because of His divine nature and immutable holiness. A stick of wood, and an ingot of gold are subjected to the same fire. The wood is permanently consumed: the gold is only melted, because it is a precious metal, incapable of natural oxidation, and it is gathered, undiminished, from the ashes of the furnace. But the fire was the same! And then, the infinite dignity of Christ’s person gives to His temporal sufferings a moral value equal to the weight of all the guilt of the world.  Dabney, Lectures, 505.

Dabney and infinite and unlimited expiation with limited intention to apply:

1)

The Five Points of Calvinism:
Particular Redemption

Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?” The answer has been much prejudiced by ambiguous terms, such as “particular atonement,” “limited atonement,” or “general atonement,” “unlimited atonement,” “indefinite atonement.” What do they mean by atonement? The word (at-one-ment) is used but once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), and there it means expressly and exactly reconciliation. This is proved thus: the same Greek word in the next verse, carrying the very same meaning, is translated reconciliation. Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ’s sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual.

But sacrifice, expiation, is one—the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam’s race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ’s expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. This is the blessed sense in which the Apostle John says (1 Jn. 2:2): “Christ is the propitiation (the same word as expiation) for the sins of the whole world.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Hales:

Right Honourable and my very good Lord,

Upon Friday the 8^th of January in the Evening, the Synod being met, Doctor Gomarus answered some parts of Scripture, laid host of by the Remonstrants, after the same manner as Dr Silvandus had one the Night before, the places by him discussed were for the most part the same which in the former Session had been handled. The order of discussing these arguments is by continued Discourse after the manner of Latin Sermons, or rather of Divinity Lectures, such as are read in our Schools. In one thing the discretion of both these Doctors was much approved. For both of them hold that extreme and rigid Tenent, which Beza and Perkins first of all acquainted the World with, yet notwithstanding they held impartial Course and never struck upon it.

John Hales, “Mr. Hales’s Letters from the Synod of Dort, To the Right Honourable Sir Dudley Carlton, Lord Embassador, &c,” in Golden Remains of the ever Memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton College, (London: Printed by T.B for George Pawlet, at the Sign of the Bible in Chancery-Lane, 1688), 451-452.

[Credit to Marty.]

Hall:

Neither is this election, according to the plea of the opponents, made ever the more uncertain by this pre-requisition of our faith: since they profess to teach it supposed in our election, not as a condition whose performance God expects, as uncertain; but as a gift, which God, according to his eternal prescience, foresees in man, present and certain: as the decree of sending Christ into the world did not depend upon a conditioned and uncertain expectation of what man would do, or would not do; but upon the infallible notice of God, who foresaw man as presently sinning or fallen: so as the election of God is not suspended upon the mutability of man s will; but upon the infallible certainty of the foreknowledge of God, to whose eyes our faith and perseverance is not more doubtful than future, and whose prescience hath no less infallibility than his decree. If therefore God may have the sole glory of this work in the gift of that faith which he foresees, and our election hazards no certainty, as they profess to hold, what is there that should need to draw blood in this first quarrel?

But what need I labour to reconcile these opinions, which have no reason to concern us? The church of England, according to the explication of R[ev.] B[ishop] Overal, goes a midway betwixt both these. For, while the one side holds a general conditional decree of God to save all men if they believe, and a particular decree of saving those who he foresaw would believe; and the other side, not admitting of that general conditionate decree, only teaches a particular absolute decree to save some special persons, for whom only Christ was given, and to whom grace is given irresistibly, all others being by a no less absolute decree rejected: our church, saith he, with St. Austin, maintaineth an absolute and particular decree of God to save those whom he hath chosen in Christ, not out of the prescience of our faith and will, but out of the mere purpose of his own will and grace: and that there upon God hath decreed to give, to whom he pleaseth, a more effectual and abundant grace, by which they not only may believe and obey if they will; but whereby they do actually will, believe, obey, and persevere, without prejudice to the rest, to whom he hath also given gracious offers and helps to the same purpose, though by their just fault neglected.

What can the synod of Dort in this case wish to be said more? Indeed, withal he addeth a general conditionate will of God, or a general evangelical promise of saving all if they do believe: since God doth will and command that all men should hear Christ and believe in him; and in so doing hath offered grace and salvation unto all: declaring how well these two may agree together, that, first, God hath propounded salvation in Christ to all if they believe, and hath offered them (within the church especially) a common and sufficient grace in the means that he hath mercifully ordained, if men would not be wanting to the word of God and his Holy Spirit; and that to ascertain the salvation of man, he hath decreed to add that especial, effectual, and saving grace unto some: neither of which truths can well and safely be denied of any Christian: only the sound of a general and conditionate will perhaps seems harsh to some ears; whereto yet they should do well to inure themselves, since it is the approved distinction of worthy, orthodox, and unquestionable divines.

Zanchius, in his book De Praedest. Sanct. hath it in terminis., with a large exposition. "That God willeth some things absolutely," saith he," it is manifest, and plainly confirmed by scriptures: so he absolutely willed the world should be created and governed: so he absolutely willed that Christ should come into the world and die for the salvation of his elect. He wills also absolutely that the elect shall be saved; and therefore performs to them all things that are necessary to their salvation." "That the same God willeth some things conditionally, the scriptures also teach us: for God would have all men to be saved, if they would keep the law, or believe in Christ: and therefore I call that first an absolute will, this latter a conditional." And in the next leaf to the same purpose he saith, "It is also true that God would have all men to be saved in his revealed and conditionate will; scil. if they would believe in Christ and care fully keep his law: for by this will no man is excluded from salvation and knowledge of the truth." So Ambrose interprets that place of I Tim. ii. 4. "He would have all to be saved," saith he, "if themselves will: for he hath given his law to all; and excepts no man," in respect of his law and will revealed, "from salvation." For the further allowing whereof, the same Zanchius cites the testimonies of Luther, Bucer, and others. Neither doth it much ablude from this, that our English divines at Dort call the decree of God, whereby he hath appointed in and by Christ to save those that repent, believe, and persevere, Decretum annunciativum salutis omnibus ex cequo et indiscriminatim promulgandum.¹

Surely it is easy to observe that we are too fearful of some distinctions, which carry in them a jealousy of former abuse; and yet both may well be admitted in a good sense, and serve for excellent purpose; as that if we labour, for our better under standing, to explicate the one will of God by several notions of the antecedent and consequent will of God; (which Paulus Ferrius, a reformed schoolman, approves by the suffrages of Zanchius, Polanus, and other orthodox divines;²) to look at it a little running, as that which gives no small light to the business in hand.

As there is wont to be conceived a double knowledge of God: the one, of mere understanding, whereby he foreknows all things that may be; the other, of vision or approbation, whereby he foreknows that which undoubtedly shall be: so there is a double will to be conceived of God, answerable to this double know ledge; an antecedent will, which answers to the mere understanding, whereby God wills every possible good, without the consideration of the adjuncts appertaining to it; a consequent will, answering to the knowledge of approbation, whereby, all circumstances prepensed, God doth simply will this or that particular event as simply good to be, and which is thereupon impossible not to be. The one of these is a will of complacency; the other, of prosecution: the one is, as it were, an optative will; the other, an absolute. In the first of these, God would have all to be saved; because it is in a sort good in itself, in that the nature of man is ordainable to life, and man hath by God common helps seriously offered for the attaining thereof: neither can we think it other than pleasing to God, that his creatures should both do well and fare well. In the latter, he willeth some of all to be saved; as not finding it simply good, all circumstances considered, to extend this favour to all: this appears in the effect; for, if God absolutely willed it, it could not fail of being. Neither doth aught hinder but these two may stand well together; a complacence in the blessedness of his creature, and a will of his smart: for both that which we will in one regard we may not will in another; as we may wish a felon to live as a man, to die as a malefactor; and besides, the possibility of one opposite doth not hinder the act of another, as he that hath power to run perhaps doth sit or lie.

Learned Zanchius, methinks, gives at once a good satisfaction, as to this doubt so to the ordinary exception, whereat many have stumbled, of the pretended mockage of God s invitations, where he means not, as some have misconceived, a serious effect. "In the parable of the gospel," saith he, "those which were first bidden to the marriage feast, and carne not, were they therefore mocked by the king, because he only signified unto them what would be acceptable unto him, and what was their duty to per form? and yet he did not command them to be compelled, as he did the second guests, to come to the wedding. Surely no: yet in the meantime there was not the same will of the king in the inviting of the first, and of the second: for in these second, there was an absolute will of the king, that they should without fail come, and therefore he effectually caused them to come: in the former he only signified, and that fairly and ingenuously, what would be pleasing to him." Thus he. The entertainment of this one distinction, which hath the allowance of orthodox and learned authors, to be free from any danger or inconvenience, would mitigate this strife; since it is that which the opponents contend for, and which the defendants may yield without any sensible prejudice.

As for the envy of that irrespective and absolute decree of reprobation wherewith the defendants are charged, it is well taken off, if we distinguish, as we must, of a negative and positive reprobation; the latter whereof, which is a preordination to punishment, is never without a respect and prevision of sin: for, although by his absolute power God might cast any creature into everlasting torment, without any just exception to be taken on our parts; yet, according to that sweet providence of his, which disposeth all things in a fair order of proceeding, he cannot be said to inflict or adjudge punishment to any soul, but for sin, since this is an act of vindicative justice, which still supposeth an offence. If this be yielded by the defendants, as it is, wherein also they want not the voices even of the Romish school, what needs any further contention? especially while the defendants plead, even those that are most rigorous, that upon the non-election of some, damnation is "not causally but only consecutively" inferred. Sure I am that by this, which is mutually yielded on both parts, all mouths are stopped from any pretence of calumniation against the justice of the Almighty; and we are sufficiently convinced of the necessity of our care to avoid those sins which shall otherwise be rewarded with just damnation.

Let this be enough for the first article. Less will serve of the rest.

Concerning the extent of Christ’s death, the Belgic opponents profess to rest willingly in those words of Musculus: Omnium peccata tulit, &c: "He hath borne the sins of all men, if we consider his sacrifice according to the virtue of it in itself, and think that no man is excluded from this grace but he that refuses it. So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; John iii. 16. But if we respect those which do so believe and are saved; so he hath borne only the sins of many." Thus he.³ Neither will the opponents yield any less. What is this other than the explication of that usual distinction which we have, whether from St. Austin or his scholar Prosper, of the greatness of the price, and the propriety of the redemption?⁴ that equal to all, this pertaining but to some. That common word seems enough to the Belgic opponents: "The price of Christ’s blood is sufficient to save all:" and if this may serve their turn, who can grudge it? Contrarily, while they do willingly grant, that in respect of the efficacy of power, Christ died not for all; and that Christ was given only with this intention of his Father, that the world should no otherwise be saved by his Son than through faith; what need we urge more?

Both will grant that the apothecary’s shop hath drugs enough for the cure of all diseases, which yet can profit none but those that are willing to make use of them. Both will accord in this position, which B. Overall commends, as in effect the words of worthy Mr. Calvin: So Christ died for all, that there is no man, if his incredulity did not hinder him, but were redeemed by his precious blood: neither is there, as is willingly confessed by the defendants, any man living to whom it may be singularly said, Christ died not for thee.⁵ Seeing therefore whole mankind doth but result of singular and individual men, why should we fear to say unto all, that Christ died for them?

Now what should we stand upon a niggardly contestation of words, where so much real truth is mutually yielded? Who can think there can be any peril to that soul who believes thus much? The rest to the schools.

But whatever have been the nice scruples and explications of foreign divines, we have no such cause of strife, if we admit that which our learned bishop commends for the voice of the church of England! who, having laid down the two extreme opinions of the opposite parts, brings in the church of England as sweetly moderating betwixt both: that she, supposing the death of Christ for all men, and God’s conditionate intention of the general grace of his evangelical promise, adds moreover the special intention of God to apply the benefit of Christ’s death, by a more abundant and effectual grace, absolutely, certainly, and infallibly, to the elect alone, without any diminution of that his sufficient and common favour; which as we see so yields to both parts what they desire, as that in the meantime it puts upon both what they are not greatly forward to admit: yet that which it puts upon them may be admitted without any complaint, except perhaps of excess of charity; and that which is yielded is abundantly enough for peace.

Joseph Hall, “Via Media: The Way of Peace,” in The Works of the Right Reverent Joseph Hall, (New York, Ames press, 1969), 9:505-511. [Note: Hall was one of the English delegates to Dort. For a brief biography see wikipedia I have not included all the Latin footnotes except those which are of particular interest. I cannot verify the one Calvin citation as of yet. Credit to Marty for the find. ]

_____________________

¹"The declarative decree of salvation is to be equally and indifferently proclaimed unto all men." Act. Syno. in [Explic. Thes. Heterodox, i. ut supra, p. 6.] ²[Ferrii "Scholastici Orthodoxi Specimen." Gotstadii 1616, p. 386.] ³[Musculi Comment, in Esaiam. [liii. 5.] Basil. 1570. pp. 705,6.] ⁴Magnitudinem pretii distinguit a proprietate redemptionis. ["Quod ergo ad magnitudinem et potentiam pretii,sanguis Christi est redemptio totius mundi, &c. Prosper! Reap, ad Object. Vincent. Opp. August, vol. x. App. col. 208.] ⁵Nulli hominum singulariter denun- turn pro ipso mortuum non esse. Ibid. Iciatur, [neque ulli denunciatur ] Chris- p. 155.