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.]

Brown:

b. The Pleas.

In support of this petition our Lord urges two pleas: the first, that it is by this unity of mind, will, aim, and operation, that the world is to be brought to believe and know that the Father had sent the Son; and the second, that this unity, with the effects to which it was sure to lead, was the great object why He had given his people the glory which the Father had given him.

With regard to the first of these pleas, let us inquire, first, What is the object our Lord contemplates as. to be served by this unity? and then, How this unity is fitted to gain this object. The object is, “that the world may be made to believe and know that the Father had sent the Son.” “The world,” here, as generally in the New Testament, means mankind; as when it is said, “God so loved the world, that He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life;” “sent him not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.”¹ Though it is, and cannot but be, the will, the object of complacential regard to him whose nature as well as name is love,² that all men should be “saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,” it is nowhere stated in the Scriptures that it is the purpose of God that all men shall be saved, by being made to know and believe that he hath sent his Son, and thus brought to receive his message, to embrace him as their Savior, and to become partakers of his salvation. On the contrary, we have abundant evidence that some men–many men–shall perish in, and for, their sin and unbelief.

But it is stated–very plainly stated–in Scripture, that it is the will of God that the gospel of the kingdom should be “preached to every creature under heaven;” and not only so, but also that it is his determination that vast multitudes of men, of all kindreds, and people, and tongues, and nations, shall be brought, through the faith of that gospel, into the possession of the blessings which it at once reveals and conveys; and that a period may be looked for when the great body of mankind living on the earth at the same time shall be brought to the knowledge and profession of the Christian faith, and to the enjoyment of the Christian salvation. It was distinctly promised that “in Abraham’s seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed;”³ that “to Shiloh was to be the gathering of the people,”⁴ and that” the nations”–the Gentiles–were to “rejoice with God’s people;”⁵ that” all the ends of the earth were to remember, and turn to the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations should worship before him;”⁶ that” He should have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth;” that” all kings should fall down before him, and all nations should serve him;” that” men should be blessed in him, and all nations should call him blessed;”⁷ that “Jehovah’s name should be one over all the earth,”⁸ and that” the God of the whole earth should he be called;”⁹ that the Messiah should be a “light to lighten the Gentiles, and. Jehovah’s salvation to the end of the earth;”¹⁰ that “the glory of the Lord should be revealed, and that all flesh should see it together.”¹¹ “The world’s knowing and believing that the Father had sent the Son” is just equivalent to ‘mankind enjoying eternal life in the knowledge of the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he bas sent men experimentally” knowing God as the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, blessing them with all heavenly and spiritual blessings in him.” This, then, is the object which our Lord contemplates as to be gained by the union of his church for which he prays, and which he employs as a plea with the Father, that this Union may be effected and’ maintained by his keeping and consecrating them. John Brown, An Exposition of Our Lord’s Intercessory Prayer, (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1866), 161-163. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified; and underlining mine.]

__________________________

¹John iii. 16, 17.

²I Tim. ii. 3, 4; 1 John iv. 16.

³Gen. xxii. 18.

⁴Gen. xlix. 10.

⁵Deut. xxxii. 43.

⁶Ps. xxii. 27.

⁷Ps. lxm 8, 11, 17.

⁸Zech. xiv. 9.

⁹Isa. liv. 5.

¹⁰Isa. xlix. 6.

¹¹Isa. xl. 5.

Brown:

(2.) His pleadings for his apostles.

We proceed now to consider the pleadings by which the Savior enforces these petitions. These pleadings may all be arranged under the following heads :–First, The persons he prays for are a peculiar class, “not the world.” Secondly, They stand in a peculiar. relation both to the Father and to him, Thirdly, They have a peculiar history. Fourthly, They have a peculiar character. Fifthly, They are placed in peculiar circumstances. Sixthly, They are appointed to a peculiar and most important and difficult work. And finally, Their consecration for this work is one great end for which he consecrates himself to the great work assigned him by the Father. Let us turn our attention to these topics in their order, endeavoring to apprehend the meaning of our Lord’s statements with respect to each of them, and their bearing and force as pleas, on the petitions which he presents for his apostles.

1. They were a peculiar Class.

The first plea which I would bring under your consideration is, ‘that the objects of his prayer were a peculiar class–not the world.’ “I pray not for the world”¹ (ver. 9). And I call your attention to this plea first, because it lays the foundation for all the, rest. Indeed, all the rest may be considered as only the expansion or development of this.

The words, “I pray for them, I pray not for the world,” have by many able theologians been considered as an assertion that our Lord’s intercession does not in any sense extend to mankind at large, but is strictly limited to the elect. It is one of the passages which have been much used in support of the doctrine, that in no sense did Christ die for all men, and that therefore the atonement has exclusively a reference to ‘the elect;’ the two parts of our Lord’s mediatorial work being justly considered as indissoluble.

Like many other passages of Scripture, more eagerness has been discovered by polemical divines to wrest it as a weapon out of the hand of an antagonist, or to employ it as a weapon against him, than to discover what is the precise meaning of the words as used by our Lord, and how they serve the purpose for which he employed them. I think it will not be difficult to show that the assertion that our Lord prays for no blessings for any but the elect, is not warranted by Scripture; and that, even if it were, it would not be easy to show how such a statement should have’ a place in a plea for the bestowment of certain blessings on his apostles.²

Read the rest of this entry »

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.]