1)
IV. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
This topic, if considered in all its amplitude, would embrace the atonement in its relations to the universe. That it sustains such relations is entirely credible, but we are specially concerned with its relation to God and men. In this view the subject is one of deep personal interest to all the human race. As to the sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of the world, there can be no doubt and there need be no controversy. If as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of Christ’s person, and if his dignity results by a sublime necessity from his divinity, it is a grand impertinence to attempt to limit its sufficiency. So far as the claims of law and justice are concerned, the atonement has obviated every difficulty in the way of any sinner’s salvation. In supplying a basis for the exercise of mercy in one instance it supplies a basis for the exercise of mercy in innumerable instances. It places the world, to use the language of Robert Hall, “in a salvable state.” It makes salvation an attainable object. That is, all men, in consequence of the atonement, occupy a position where saving influences can reach them. There is no natural impossibility in the way of their salvation. If it be asked why all men are not saved, I reply, The answer is not to be sought in the atonement, but in the culpable unwillingness of sinners to be saved. Here the question is to be left, and here it ought always to have been left.
The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the world’s salvation, is the only basis on which can consistently rest the universal invitations of the gospel. On this point I cannot express my views so well as Andrew Fuller has done in the following language: “It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might he made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to he reconciled to God from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non-elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.
“I do not deny that t here is difficulty in these statements, but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man; whereas in the other case God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and which, therefore, is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer in every stage of it to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable; which the other, I conceive, does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ’s atonement or the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him, or, in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe to such persons as have believed already.”1
This extract from the writings of Mr. Fuller is commended to candid and earnest consideration, especially that part of it which presents the absurdity of offering salvation to fallen angels because an atonement has been made for fallen men. The absurdity arises from the fact that the atonement has no reference to fallen angels; and if there are sinners of Adam’s race to whom it has no more reference than to fallen angels, the offer of salvation to those sinners would be a repetition of the absurdity.
The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of all the world is the only doctrine which harmonizes with the commission of Christ to the apostles: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. 15,16. According to this commission, salvation is to be offered to the whole human family. Language could be ne1ther more general nor more specific–”into all the world,” “to every creature.” But the fearful intimation is that some will not believe, and through unbelief will incur damnation. It must then be the duty of all to believe. Believe what? The gospel. And what is it to believe the gospel? It is so to credit its facts and its truths. as to trust in Christ for salvation. Faith is said to be in his blood;” that is, it involves reliance on the atonement made by his blood. If, then, it is the duty of all men to believe, and if faith implies reliance on the atonement, and if the atonement was made for a part of the race only, it follows we that it is the duty of those for ‘Whom no atonement was made to rely 0n that which has no existence. This is an absurdity. The more the point is considered, the more evident it will appear that the duty of all men to believe the gospel is inseparable from the “objective fulness” of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of all men. Again, in believing in Christ we not only believe, primarily, that he died for sinners, but, secondarily, that be died for us as included among sinners. The latter belief is by no means to be made so prominent as the former, but it is essential to a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation. Now, if Christ did not die for all, and if it is the duty of all to believe in him, it is the duty of some–those for whom he did not die–to believe an untruth. This also reduces the matter to an absurdity for it cannot be the duty of anyone to believe what is not true. We must either give up the position that it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, or admit that the atonement of Christ has reference to all men.
Much more might be said on this point, but there is not room for more in the narrow limits of a compendium of theology. Such is the extent of the atonement, that salvation is offered to all men; nor dare we question God’s sincerity in making the offer. While the atoning merit of the blood of Christ is infinite, its saving efficacy is restricted to its application. We may therefore say of the atonement that it is so general that all are saved who” come to God “by Christ, and so limited that none are saved who do not” come to God” through the Mediator, “the man Christ Jesus. who gave himself a ransom for all” 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. James M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines: A Compendium of Theology, (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1954), 241-245. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; footnote values modified and numbered consecutively for both works; italics original; and underlining mine.]
2)
CHAPTER IV.
THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
THIS topic, if considered in all its amplitude, would embrace the atonement in its relations to the universe. That it sustains such relations, is entirely credible. That it has made a moral impression which has gone abroad into all worlds inhabited by intelligent beings, comes, to say the least, within the limits of probability. True, our utterances on this point should not be positive; but we may reason in this way: The death of Christ is the most important event
that has ever taken place in the universe. His cross is invested with a moral grandeur to be seen nowhere else in the boundless empire of space. This view must be entertained in heaven; for to “principalities and powers in heavenly places” is known “by the church,” that is, by its redemption, “the manifold wisdom of God.” These” principalities and powers” had been long contemplating the divine wisdom. They had seen . it as displayed in the wonders of creation and in the works of providence; but thy had new views of this wisdom when they saw that it had devised a plan by which there was a redeemed church through the blood of the crucified Messiah. Angels are intense students of the mysteries of salvation, for they earnestly “desire to look into the things” announced in the gospel. Now, if the atonement of Christ is the greatest and the sublimest of all transactions, if no analogous transaction has taken place in any world, then it cannot be unreasonable to suppose that the influence of the atonement has gone forth wherever there are intellectual and moral beings to be impressed with the exhibition it gives of the character of God, the majesty of his law, the glory of his government, and the evil of sin.
But I will not dwell on matters which may be considered by some as involving unjustifiable speculation. The atonement in its relation to God and man more especially concerns us; and here the extent of the atonement becomes intensely personal, and, according to the view of some, painfully so. The atonement has been often represented as a commercial transaction, proceeding on the principle of creditor and debtor, requiring so much suffering on the part of the Atoner for the salvation of so many. This hypothesis implies that if it had been the divine purpose to save a smaller number than will be saved, the Redeemer would have suffered less; and if to save a greater number, he would have suffered more. Thus a great moral transaction, worthy of God and !n the highest sense illustrative of his glory, is looked upon as the literal payment of a debt. Analogies, like figures of speech, must not be pressed too far. Sin can be regarded as a debt in a metaphorical sense only. A debt is something which one person owes to another; something due from one to another. It is plain that in this sense sin is not a debt; for it is not what the creature owes to the Creator, but the very opposite. Sin, however, exposes the sinner to the penalty of the divine law, of which it is the transgression. This exposure involves obligation to suffer the penalty. The endurance of the penalty is due from the transgressor. Sin, therefore, can only be termed a debt by that figure of speech which puts the cause for the effect, and the effect for the cause. As the effect of sin, the sinner may be said to owe a debt to the violated justice of God; but sin itself cannot be a literal debt. It is a crime. If the atonement of Christ is a commercial expedient which recognizes the principle of pecuniary justice, and determines the number of the saved by the amount of suffering endured by the Savior, it is difficult to see how” grace reigns” in their salvation. If A owes B a sum of money which he is unable to pay, and C pays it for him, does B exercise any grace in releasing A from his pecuniary obligation? Surely not. The debt is paid, and this cancels the obligation. If the atonement of Christ proceeded on strictly pecuniary principles, those for whom he. paid the debt might claim their release from obligations a matter of equity rather than of grace. Or, if there is grace at all, it is the grace of the Son, and not of the Father; the grace of the Savior, and not of the Lawgiver. This shows that there must be something wrong in this view of the matter; for according to the gospel the grace of the Father, as well as of the Son and the Holy Spirit, is conspicuously displayed in salvation. There was not only grace in providing the atonement, but there is grace in releasing from condemnation through the atonement. More than this: Though the atonement was made more than eighteen hundred years ago, those who become recipients of its saving benefits are under guilt and condemnation till they believe in the atoning Redeemer. This fact is not easily reconciled with the doctrine of a commercial atonement. But let the atonement of Christ be considered a great moral governmental measure proceeding on the principle of “public justice“–to borrow a phrase from Andrew Fuller–”and supplying an honorable basis for the consistent exercise of mercy, and all is plain. Then grace reigns “through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. v. 21. The reign of grace is in accordance with righteousness, because it is by, rather through, Jesus Christ our Lord. That is to say, the atoning work of Christ opened the way for the consistent egress of grace from the divine throne to reach sinful man.
The advocates of the commercial view of atonement will, at this point, utter their protest; for they consider themselves the special friends of the doctrines of grace. To others they appear almost to “frustrate the grace of God,” as already intimated. If the question is asked, “Do not many passages of Scripture refer to the atonement of Christ in a commercial aspect?” the answer is, “Yes.” But let not the figure be carried too far. So also of another figure which represents Christ as Head, and believers as members of his body. This must not be so explained as to divest believers of conscious personality, though there is in the members of the literal body, apart from the head, no such thing.2
The extent of the atonement has an important bearing on the mediatorial constitution of the Divine Government. It will be admitted that this world is under the rule of the Mediator, the man Christ Jesus. The following Scriptures are too plain to be misunderstood: “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Psalm ii. 6-8. “The Father loves the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” John iii: 36. “For the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” John v. 22. “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts ii. 36. “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” 2 Cor. v. 10.
From these inspired declarations it is clear that all men, the righteous and the wicked, owe allegiance to Christ. His government is therefore universal; and why universal? Because his mediatorial interposition, on which his government is based, had reference to the human race. It contemplated the family of Adam. For this reason all men are subjects to whom the gospel should be addressed; and “as in Adam all die, . even so in Christ shall all be made alive “–that is, raised from the dead. Hence all men must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, and hear from his lips, “Come, ye blessed,” or “Depart, ye cursed.” Judging the world will be the last act of Christ’s mediatorial administration. This act having been performed, he will “deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father:” that God, in his threefold unity, may be all in all. Now if there is any portion of the human race to which the atonement has no reference, that portion, it seems most reasonable to suppose, will never be raised from the dead by Christ, and will never be judged by him. This is said in view of the fact that the atonement is the basis of Christ’s mediatorial administration of the Divine Government. If there is not a sense in which the atonement has reference to man as man, and therefore to all men, it is not easy to account for the universality of the resurrection and the judgment. For the resurrection will be effected through Christ the Mediator, and he will preside at the judgment, “because he is the Son of man.” John v. 25-27.
It will be inferred from the foregoing that I take an enlarged view of the atonement. The inference is correct. As to the sufficiency of its provisions for the salvation of the world, there can be no reasonable doubt. On this point there should be no controversy. If, as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of the Redeemer’s person, and if his dignity results by a sublime necessity from his divinity, how impertinent to attempt to limit its sufficiency! So far as the claims of law and justice are concerned, the atonement has obviated every difficulty in the way of any sinner’s salvation. In supplying an honorable basis for the exercise of mercy in one instance, it supplies a basis for the exercise of mercy in innumerable instances. It places the world, to use the language of Robert Hall, “in a salvable state.” It makes justification an attainable object; and this is probably Paul’s meaning when he teaches that, as through the disobedience of Adam, “judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” so through the obedience of Christ, “the free gift came upon all men to Justification of life.” That is, all men, in consequence of the atonement, occupy a position where saving influences can reach them. There is no natural impossibility in the way of their salvation, If it is asked, “Why, then, are not all men saved?” it is enough for me to say, that the answer is not to be sought in any lack of sufficiency in the atonement, but in the culpable unwillingness of sinners to be saved. Here the question is to be left, and here it ought always to have been left.
The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the world’s salvation, is the only basis on which can consistently rest the universal proclamation of the gospel. On this point I cannot express my views so well as Andrew Fuller has done in the following language:
It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence; the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non-elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fullness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation to whom the gospel comes, at least, than what arises from the state of his mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations.
I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements; but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man; whereas, in the other case, God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and which, therefore, is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer, in every stage of it, to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable; which the other, I conceive, does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fullness in Christ’s atonement sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him; or, in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe to such persons as have believed already.3
This extract from the writings of Mr. Fuller is commended to candid and earnest consideration; especially that part of it which intimates the absurdity of offering salvation to fallen angels, because an atonement has been made for fallen men. The absurdity arises from the fact that the atonement has no reference to fallen angels; and if there are sinners of Adam’s race to whom it has no more reference than to fallen angels, the offer of salvation to those sinners, would be a repetition of the absurdity.
The Bible represents the provisions of the atonement as universal. It will be sufficient to refer to a few passages: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isa. liii. 6. The “all” whose iniquity was laid on Christ were the “all” who like sheep had gone astray; and the entire race had gone astray. I see no other consistent interpretation of the language. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. Here we have what may be called a superlative epitome of the gospel. It will not do to say that what some have called the “elect world” is referred to; for then it would follow, in opposition to their own views, that some of the “elect world” may refuse to believe and finally perish. “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John ii. 2. No comment is required to show that these passages have reference to the entire race of Adam. But some say, and say truly, that all men will not be saved; and they ask if it does not derogate from the perfection of the divine character to admit that it is possible for any to perish for whom Christ died? This question might be sufficiently answered by another, namely, whether it does not derogate from the perfection of the divine character to admit that it is possible for any whom God has made to perish? All except Universalists admit the possibility in the latter case, and an inspired apostle admits it in the former case. Paul says, “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” Rom. xiv. I5. “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 1 Cor. viii. 11. But there are those who say that though these passages, at first view, seem to intimate that it is possible for one for whom Christ died to perish, yet they may be explained in another way. Be it so then, for it is not needful that I be tenacious of the view presented; but there is one passage about which there can be no dispute. It reads as follows: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” 2 Peter ii. 1. Here the fact is plainly stated that these “false teachers” would introduce” damnable heresies,” literally, heresies of destruction, and that, prominent among these destructive heresies, would be a denial of the Lord of whom it is said that he “bought them.” Bought them how? Evidently with his blood; he having become a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and thus acquiring a mediatorial claim to the love and service of every human being. The special point to be emphasized is. that these “false teachers,” though “bought” by the Lord, were to “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” It is therefore possible for those to perish for whom Christ died. This is the teaching of the divine word, and I leave it, without further comment, to make its own impression.
It is appropriate, in this connection, to consider the last Commission of Christ to the apostles. It is recorded by three evangelists as follows: “And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. “And he said un to them, Go ye in to all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. 15, 16. “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at J erusalem.” Luke xxiv. 46, 47.
According to this Commission, salvation is unquestionably to be offered to the whole human race. Language could be neither more comprehensive nor more specific–”into all the world” –”to every creature.” But the fearful intimation is that some will not believe, and through unbelief will incur damnation. It must, then, be the duty of all men to believe. Believe what? The gospel; and what is it to believe the gospel? It is so to credit its facts and its truths as to trust in Christ for salvation. Faith is said to be “in his blood,” that is, it involves reliance on the atonement made by his blood. If then it is the duty of all men to believe, and if faith implies reliance on the atonement, and if the atonement was made for a part of the race only, it follows that it is the duty of those for whom no atonement was made, to rely on that which has no existence. This is a self-evident absurdity.
The more the matter is considered, the more obvious will it appear that the duty of all men to believe the gospel is inseparable from the” objective fullness” of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of all men. It will not do for an objector to say that it is the duty of all men to love God irrespective of the atonement, and therefore it is their duty to believe the gospel in the same manner. But it is impossible to believe it in the same manner. Obligation to love God is not created by the atonement, though it is greatly enhanced by it. Obligation to love God must exist without regard to the atonement; for sin, which is a violation of this obligation, originated the necessity of atonement in order to the salvation of sinners. To love God, is the universal duty of creatures. This cannot be said of faith in Christ It is the duty of fallen angels to love God, but it is not their duty to believe in Christ, in the sense of trusting in him for salvation. “For verily not of angels doth he take hold”4–that is, with a view to save them. His atoning sacrifice has no reference to them. The offer of salvation is not made to them. The heavenly host did not sing at Messiah’s birth, “Glory to God in the highest, and in hell peace, goodwill toward fallen angels“–but they sang, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.”
It is the duty of all men to receive Christ as he is offered in the gospel. How is he offered? As the Savior, the only Savior. He saves, however, through the atonement he has made. If, therefore, his atonement has no reference to some men, it cannot be their duty to receive him as the Savior. Thus does it appear that receiving Christ, as he is offered in the gospel–and faith is the heart’s response to the offer–cannot be disjoined from the provisions of the atonement.
Again, in believing in Christ we not only believe primarily that he died for sinners, but secondarily that he died for us, as included among sinners. The latter belief is by no means to be made so prominent as the former, but it is essential to a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation. Now if Christ did not die for all, and if it is the duty of all to believe in him, it is the duty of some, those for whom he did not die, to believe an untruth. This also reduces the matter to an absurdity; for it cannot be the duty of any one to believe what is not true. We must either give up the position that it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, or admit that the atonement of Christ has reference to all men. Who will say that it is not the duty of every sinner to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Noone, with the declarations of the New Testament before him, will venture to make such a statement. Nor will it do to say, as some have said, that “as ministers of the gospel do not know who the ‘elect’ are, they must offer salvation to all, that the elect may be reached.” But it is God who, through his ministers, makes the offer of salvation, and he makes it to all. If then the atonement, in virtue of which salvation is offered to all, was not made for all; if there is not in it an “objective fullness” sufficient for all; if, as Andrew Fuller would. have expressed himself, it is “naturally impossible” for all to whom the offer of salvation is made to be saved,–then how to avoid charging God with insincerity, how to show that he does not trifle with his creatures, how to vindicate his character, I do not know. But if the atonement is philanthropic in its aspect; if its provisions are sufficient for the salvation of the whole world; if there is no obstacle in the way of any sinner’s salvation except his culpable reluctance to be saved on the terms of the gospel,–it is easy to see how God, in good faith, invites all men to accept the blessings of salvation. Though he knows that multitudes of them will not accept, his knowledge, or foreknowledge, does not affect in the least the sincerity of his invitations. If a man makes a feast, inviting all his neighbors, some of whom he is certain will not comply with the invitation, does this make him insincere in giving it? Evidently not. We may readily imagine not only how the invitation is sincerely given, but how its non-acceptance occasions sincere regret. In his” Lectures on Theology,” Dr. John Dick, when treating of Predestination, very wisely says: “Let us suspect our own views of the subject, rather than suspect the sincerity of God. Of the latter we are certain; it is essential to his moral character, and is the foundation of our faith in his testimony, and our dependence upon his promises. We can never be certain that we understand the subject of predestination so well as we understand that God is sincere. The latter truth, therefore, let us hold fast, whatever may become of our speculations respecting the former. Here we may err, because the subject is mysterious; but on the other point, we cannot be deceived. The gospel is preached to every creature. All are commanded to believe, and encouraged by the promise of salvation, God would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If doubts respecting these comfortable declarations of Scripture should be suggested to us from any quarter, let us repel them as hostile to our own peace, and subversive of religion, and say with the apostle, ‘Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.”’5
Dr. Dick considered God’s sincerity in inviting sinners to accept salvation as an axiom in theology; and this axiom renders necessary that view of the extent of the atonement which has been presented in this chapter. I do not see how any minister, holding the doctrinal views of Dr. John Gill, can consistently call on all men to repent and believe the gospel. Dr. Gill himself did not. To preclude a denial of this statement, I make the following extract from Dr. J. M. Cramp’s “Baptist History,” a valuable work, published both in England and America. In referring to the eighteenth century, Dr. Cramp says: “John Brine and Dr. Gill were chief in the denomination for nearly half a century. They were Supralapsarians, holding that God’s election was irrespective of the fall of man. They taught eternal justification. Undue prominence was given in their discourses to the teachings of Scripture respecting the divine purpose. Although they themselves inculcated practical godliness, and so were not justly liable to the charge of Antinomianism, there is reason to fear that numbers of those who imbibed their doctrinal views kept out of sight, or but feebly urged, the obligation of believers to personal holiness. And this is certain, that those eminent men, and all their followers, went far astray from the course marked out by our Lord and his apostles. They were satisfied with stating men’s danger, and assuring them that they were on the high road to perdition. But they did not call upon them to “repent and believe the gospel.” They did not entreat them to be “reconciled to God.” They did not ‘warn every man, and teach every man in all wisdom.’ And the churches did not, could not, under their instruction, engage in efforts for the conversion of souls. They were so afraid of intruding on God’s work, that they neglected to do what he had commanded them. They seem to have supposed that preservation was all they should aim at; they had not heart enough to seek’ for extension. No wonder that the cause declined.”6
Here we see to what deplorable results doctrinal heresy led; and these results were entirely logical. If Dr. Gill did not believe that the atonement of Christ had any more reference to a certain part of the human race than to fallen angels, how could he call on all men to believe the gospel? How could he entreat sinners indiscriminately to be reconciled to God, and urge as a motive to reconciliation, the argument of Paul: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”? 2 Cor. v. 21. How could he “warn every man, and teach every man”? How could the churches that received his teachings “engage in efforts for the conversion of souls”? They were fearful of encroaching on the divine prerogative. Is it necessary to say that there is something grievously wrong in a system of doctrine which will not permit ministers of Christ to call upon sinners without distinction to repent? Such a system is at war with the Commission of the risen Redeemer to the apostles, and in direct antagonism with the practice of the apostles. These inspired men did not hesitate to say, that” God is no respecter of persons ” (Acts x. 34), but” commands all men everywhere to repent.” Acts xvii. 30. Paul expressed the apostolic view in these words: ” For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom. x. 12, 13. Paul also wrote to the Colossians that the gospel was “preached to every creature which is under heaven.” Col. i. 23 Surely the first heralds of the cross did not hesitate to offer salvation to all men.
But the system of doctrine which does not permit ministers of the gospel to ‘call on all men to repent, does not permit churches to “engage in efforts for the conversion of souls.” How sad is this! How painfully it illustrates the paralyzing influence of error! Alas! that churches, professedly “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world,” should do nothing for the world’s conversion and salvation! If the churches do not, who will tell impenitent sinners of Christ, the Savior? If the churches do not, who can be expected to distribute the bread of life to earth’s famishing millions? Who, if they do not, will carry into effect the Redeemer’s last command? Every church formed according to the New Testament model, is by virtue of its constitution a missionary organization, whose imperative duty and high privilege it is to “engage in efforts for the conversion of souls.” These “efforts,” though they begin at home, must be co-extensive with the inhabited world, that all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of God. Any view of the atonement of Christ which does not call for and inspire these “efforts,” is deplorably wrong. The churches need not be afraid of interfering with God’s prerogative. The effective agency in the salvation of men is inalienably his; but there is an instrumental agency which churches and individual Christians are under the most sacred obligations to employ. Every dogma in conflict with this view of the matter should be abjured at once and forever.7 James M. Pendleton, The Atonement, (Philadelphia: American Baptists Publications Society, 1885), 86-110. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; footnote values modified and numbered consecutively for both works; italics original; and underlining mine.]
________________________
1Works, vol. ii pp 691, 692, American Baptist Publication society’s edition.
2A little volume written by a competent author on the proper method of explaining the” metaphorical” language of Scripture, would be of great value. Sinners, for example , are said to be “dead” I but they are not dead In such a sense as interferes with their accountability, or makes it improper to call on them to repent. Some, however, have traced the resemblance between” natural” and “spiritual” death to this absurd point.
3Fuller’s Work., vol, 2, pages 691, 692, American Baptist Publication Society’s Edition,
4This is the literal translation of Hebrews ii. 16, as given in the Revised Version,
5Lecture xxxv.
6Page 477. Dr. Cramp was, for years, President of Acadia College.
7It is said by some that “Gillism” is on the increase in the Baptist denomination. It is to be hoped that they labor under a mistake. Sad would be the day, for our churches and for the world, if there should ever be, on the part of our ministers and people, anything like a general adoption of Dr. Gill’s views. May God preserve the denomination from such a calamity!