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.

Payne:

On the other hand, let us contemplate the state of the ease, as it must have existed, had there been any limitation in the sufficiency of tl)e atonement itself–had Christ so died for some men only, as that his death would have been incompetent to the salvation of all men. In that case there would have been an obvious difference in the conduct of God, as moral governor, in relation to individuals involved in the same condemnation. The sentiment opposed supposes that the original lapse of the species” was followed by no new and merciful dispensation,–by no “accepted time,” during which God will hear the supplication of all who implore mercy in the name of his Son,–and, at the expiration of which, will render to all, in his rectoral character, according to their reception or rejection of the salvation which had been exhibition to them;–but that, without the intervention of any such dispensation,–a dispensation which might afford an opportunity for a difference of final state being awarded according to the rules of moral government,–many are left to suffer the sentence of the law which all have broken, while others, guilty of the same crime, are pardoned.

Though we do not admit human authority in religion, it may be well to remember that the sentiments which I have expressed in reference to the sufficiency of the atonement, have been held by individuals whose praise is in all the churches. I refer to a few, beginning with Calvin himself; for it is his final opinion on this point which is to be regarded as his real opinion. In his Exposition of the holy Scriptures, written Subsequently to his Institutes, he says, with reference to Matt. xxvi. 28, “Sub multorum nomine non partem mundi tantum designat, sed totum humanum genus.” Again, on Rom. v. 18, 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 indifferenter, Dei benignitate offeretur; non tamen omnes apprehendunt.” In his last will, also, drawn up by himself about a month before his death, he refers to the blood of Christ, and adds, that it was “effuso pro humani generis peccatis.”

George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and Regeneration (London: James Dinnis, 62, Paternoster Row, 1838), 219-220. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Payne:

I add only the following quotations from the excellent Scott:-

It seems to be the decided opinion of his Lordship, (Bishop of Lincoln,) that the evangelical clergy, especially such of them as believe the doctrine of personal election, hold what is called particular redemption, whereas very few of them adopt it. The author of these remarks, (himself), urged by local circumstances rather than by choice, above twenty-four years since, avowed his dissent from the doctrine of particular redemption, as held by many professed Calvinists, especially among the Dissenters.

It is to be regretted that Mr. Scott used the term redemption here. He evidently regarded it as identical with atonement. This is not the case, however. Redemption is the effect of atonement. It is the actual deliverance of its subject from condemnation, sin, and misery, on the ground of the atonement-or the price of redemption paid by the Son of God. Redemption, therefore, must be particular; or, we must admit the unscriptural doctrine of universal salvation. This is, however, only a mistake as to phraseology, That Mr. Scott understood redemption in the sense of atonement, is manifest from the following passage:–

The infinite value and sufficiency of the atonement made by the death of Him who was God and Man in one mysterious person; the way in which the Scripture calls on sinners, without distinction, to believe in Christ; and every circumstance respecting Redemption, shows it to be a general benefit, from which none will be excluded, except through unbelief (Reply, &c., pp. 447,448.)

George Payne, Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, Election, the Atonement, Justification, and Regeneration (London: James Dinnis, 62, Paternoster Row, 1838), 222.

Payne:

Secondly, we proceed to notice the nature of that satisfaction which was rendered to God as the moral Governor of the world. As we proceed, it will be found that the various parts of this great subject illustrate each other. The statements concerning the necessity of the atonement, for instance, partially explain its nature; an exhibition of its nature proves, on the other hand, its necessity. In like manner, the nature of that satisfaction which it is now proposed to investigate, must have received some elucidation from the account just given of the displeasure, on the part of God, which rendered the satisfaction necessary. The correctness of this statement will more fully appear in the course of the following remarks.

The previous definition of the atonement exhibits it in the light of a moral satisfaction. It was stated to be a satisfaction for sin, rendered to God as the moral Governor of the world. Now a moral satisfaction is one entirely sui generis. We must be especially cautious not to identify it in our conceptions with a pecuniary satisfaction. The common and popular phraseology on this subject exposes us to the danger of doing this. Sin is frequently described as a debt, and the atonement as the payment of this debt; and, if we were careful to recollect that these are symbolical or figurative terms, we should not be misled by the phraseology. But the misfortune is, that words which are really figurative, and which are employed for the sole purpose of illustration, have been under. stood and explained literally. Sin has been represented as a real debt, and the atonement as a real payment of that debt; and the unhappy result is, that darkness of the densest kind has been made to envelop the whole subject. There are individuals who imagine that Christ rescues his people from the claims of Divine justice in precisely the same way in which a generous friend delivers a debtor from captivity, by advancing the necessary sum on his behalf. Now I would not affirm that it is impossible for such persons to be saved by an humble hope in the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ; but I can have no hesitation in expressing the opinion, that they do not understand the atonement. A pecuniary satisfaction, and a moral satisfaction, differ essentially in their nature, and pro. ceed on radically different principles. Perhaps no man has set this difference in a clearer light than the late Mr. Fuller, whose words I quote :–“I apprehend,” says this excellent writer,

that very important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. The blood of Christ is, indeed, the price of our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law; but this metaphorical language, as well as that of head and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, when a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may obtain his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice.

Read the rest of this entry »