Cox:

26. It is rather surprising to see certain limitarians¹ sometimes arrogate to themselves, at least by implication, the honor of exclusive Calvinism, as well as exclusive orthodoxy. They are certainly in an error there, if what Calvin believed and taught may be viewed as the criterion of what Calvinism is. In his institutes of the Christian religion, written (when about 35 years of age) in his theological youth, although they were less express on the point than his subsequent writings, I recollect no sentence which determines any thing in favor of restrictive views of the nature of atonement. In his commentary, which was his maturer work and the rich mine whence many modern writers have taken their second-hand wisdom, and which has never (so far as I know) been rendered into English and published, his sentiments are full, frequent, conclusive, in favor of a full atonement. It may be well to transcribe a few of these. I could easily give more.

1 John, 2: 3, where Christ is said to be “the propitiation–for the sins of the whole world.” Calvin says indeed that “he would not stoop to answer the ravings of those who hence declare all the reprobate and even the devil himself to be the ultimate subjects of salvation. A portion so monstrous deserves no refutation. But others, who have no such purpose, affirm that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men; but efficiently for the elect alone. And this solution of the matter is commonly received in the schools. I question however its relevancy to the present passage, while I confess its absolute truth.” Hence (1) Calvin believed the fulness of the atonement, and made it a part of his Christian confession. (2) Just as obviously is it no modern speculation; since it had obtained in the schools of protestant orthodoxy, even commonly, three hundred years ago. I subjoin his own words. Sed hic movetur quaestio, quomodo mundi totius peccata expientur. Omitto phreneticorum deliria, qui hoc praetextu reprobes omnes, adeoque Satanam ipsum in salutem admittunt: tale portentum refutatione indignum est. qui hane absurditatem volebant effugere, dixerunt; Sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse Christum: Bed pro eleetis tantum efficaeiter Vulgo haec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor; nego tamen praesenti loco quadrare.

2 Pet. 2:1. “Even denying the Lord that bought them.” He says “those therefore who, despising restraint, have abandoned themselves to all licentiousness, are deservedly said to deny Christ by whom they were redeemed. Moreover, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain safe and entire in our hands, let us fix it in our minds that we have been redeemed by Christ to this very end–that he may be at once the Lord of our life and our death: and so let us propose to ourselves this end, that to him we may live, and to him we may die.” His words are–Qui igitur excusso freno in omnem licentiam se projiciunt, non immerito dicuntur Christum abnegare a quo redempti sunt. Proinde ut salva et Integra evangelii doctrina apud nos maneat, hoc animis nostria infixum sit, tedemptos esse nos a Christo ut vitae simul et mortis nostrae sit Dominus: itaque nobis hunc finem esse propositum ut illi vivamus ac moriaraur.

Rom. 5: 18. “Therefore, as by one offence [sentence came] upon all men unto condemnation, so by the righteousness of one [sentence came] upon all men unto justification of life.” Stuart’s translation. Calvin says, ” The apostle here makes it the common grace of all, because to all it is exhibited, though to all it is not realized in eventual fact. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and to all without discrimination is he offered by the benignity of God, yet all men do not apprehend him.” His words are–Communem omnium gratiam facit,’ quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa: nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi atque omnibus indifierenter Dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.

Matt. 26 : 28. “For this is my blood of the new testament, [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” He says, “Under the word many Jesus Christ designates not a part of the world only but the total human race. Therefore, when we approach ‘the table of the Lord, not only should this general thought occur to our mind, that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but each for himself ought to consider that his own sins have been expiated.” I give his words. Sub multorum nomine non partem mundi tantum designat sed totum humanum genus. Ergo dum ad suam mensam accedimus, non solum haec generalis cogitatio in mentem veniat, iredemptum Christi sanguine esse mundum; sed pro se quisque reputet peccata sua expiata esse.

Samuel H. Cox, Quakerism Not Christianity: Or, Reasons for Renouncing The Doctrine of Friends (New York: Printed by D. Fanshaw, 1833), 665-666. [Italics original; some reformatting; footnote value and content mine; and underlining mine.]

Cox:

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, is it 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 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 should 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. When THE ELECT are all brought to piety and heavens by supposition, the OTHERS–whoever they are–have just as good an opportunity every way to realize the same blessedness, as all the world have on the theory that denies election. Election is one thing, atonement another. Election is all gain and no loss–and the reverse precisely is true of the error that denies election. See John, 6: 36-40, 44, 65. 10: 11, 15, 26-30. 17 : 2. Eph. 5: 25-27. Rev. 17: 8. Matt. 25: 34. Rom. 9: 29.

Samuel H. Cox, Quakerism Not Christianity: Or, Reasons for Renouncing The Doctrine of Friends (New York: Printed by D. Fanshaw, 1833), 666-667.

Payne:

LECTURE XIII.

______

ATONEMENT.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

I NEED not say that no point of Scripture doctrine has given rise to more disputes than the subject on the consideration of which we are about to enter. On the one hand, it has been asserted, that the love of God in the gift of his Son had for its objects only the elect, that Christ gave himself for them exclusively,–that in no sense has he made atonement for others; and that, consequently, none but the elect either will or can partake of those spiritual and everlasting blessings which How from what he has done. On the other hand, it is contended, that God loved the whole world,–that Christ made an atonement for the whole world; and that if any are not saved by him, it is because they do not comply with the conditions on which the actual enjoyment of the blessings purchased by him for all men is suspended. Now, if it were not almost presumption to express such an opinion in reference to a point on which men of the greatest talents and learning, and, I may add, piety too, are to be found in a hostile attitude, I should say, that things have been advanced by both parties in the controversy which it will be difficult to reconcile with the word of God. It is not uncommon in controversy, for both of the parties engaged, regarding each other’s sentiments as dangerous, to recede in some measure from the doctrine of Scripture, in their mutual desire to avoid what they regard as contrary to it. They fix their thoughts too exclusively upon the conceived error; their minds are thus partially withdrawn from the standard of truth; and they depart in some degree, by almost necessary consequence, from the truth itself. The remarks which I have to make upon this subject will perhaps be best presented in the form of a series of propositions, beginning with those which are less disputable, and proceeding to others which will serve more fully to exhibit the doctrine of Scripture in reference to it. .

1st. The sacred writers invite all men to come to Christ, and to secure, by that act, those blessings which flow to sinners through the channel of his atonement. In the support of this proposition I need not enlarge. Isa. lv. 1, “Ho, every one that thirsts, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, ‘come, buy wine and milk . without money and without price.” “Come unto me,” said our Lord, “all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” ” Whosoever cometh unto me, I will in nowise cast out.” “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of” life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.) The attempts of certain individuals to show that these are not indiscriminate invitations–that they are addressed to certain characters, or to individuals in certain states of mind, exclusively, and so afford no warrant to others to make application to the Savior for the blessings of redemption, are so directly opposed to every just principle of interpretation, that I do not feel called upon to spend one moment of time in exhibiting their fallacy. It is only necessary to say, that the language is in exact agreement with the manner in which indefinite, unlimited invitations, to become possessed of any blessing, are, in the every day intercourse of life, addressed to men; all who choose, or will, may go and receive it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Payne:

Dr. Owen, also, who at an earlier period of his life espoused the notion that the Redeemer suffered the exact quantum of punishment which the elect must have endured,–an opinion. which necessarily implies that his atonement was not in itself sufficient for the salvation of all,–in more advanced age warmly recommended Polhill’s Treatises on the Divine Will,” the arguments of which,” he says, “are suited to the genius of the age past, wherein accuracy and strictness of reason bear sway.” And yet this treatise ‘argues in the following manner; “If Christ did in no way die for all men, which way shall the truth of these general promises be made out? ‘Whosoever will, may take of the water of life.’ What, though Christ never bought it for him? ‘Whosoever believes shall be Saved.’ What, though there was no lutron, no price paid for him? Surely the gospel knows no water of life, but that which Christ purchased, nor any way of salvation but by a lutron, or price paid. If Christ no way died for all men, how can these promises stand true? All men, if they believe, shall be saved;–saved, but how? Shall they be saved by a lutron, or price of redemption? There was none at all paid for them t the immense value of Christ’s death doth not make it a price as to them for whom he died not; or shall they be saved without a lutron, or price? God’s unsatisfied justice cannot suffer it, his minatory law cannot bear it, neither doth the gospel know. any such way of salvation; take it either way, the truth of those promises cannot be vindicated, unless we say that Christ died for all men.” I do not wish to be understood as expressing approbation of the whole of this language. The writer seems to have entertained obscure conceptions in reference to the nature of the atonement,–the manner in which the death of Christ secured the pardon of sin. I merely quote it as involving the opinion that his sacrifice is in itself sufficient for the whole family of man; which is all for which I think it necessary to contend.

George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and Regeneration (London: James Dinnis, 62, Paternoster Row, 1838), 220-221.