I.
THE subject of the extent of the Atonement is one around which a keen controversy was waged in the Church. At the outset it is necessary to make clear what is meant by the term “extent of the Atonement.” I. It is not meant thereby that the sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ is not infinite; for the most thorough-going Calvinistic theologians, though using the term limited,* hold that doctrine with unswerving loyalty.
*The more correct term is definite. This is the term used by the Princeton theologians and invariably by Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Smeaton.
The Schoolmen, in an endeavour to set forth this great truth, unfortunately, used a phrase which is open to objection. They were accustomed to say that Christ died sufficiently for all men but efficiently or efficaciously for the elect (sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis). At first sight the phrase seems all right but on closer examination it will be noticed that it is the design or destination of the atonement in the words that Christ died sufficiently for all men that is emphasised rather than its sufficiency. Some of the Reformed divines, Calvin included, accepted this statement but after the doctrine of the extent of the Atonement had become a subject of controversy, theologians of the Reformed Church saw the necessity of correcting this formula and refused to accept it as a correct statement of the doctrine of the all-sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ. In the corrected form Calvinists readily accept the formula that Christ’s death was sufficient for all while efficacious for the elect. This statement sets forth the infinite efficacy of the atoning sacrifice while the statement of the Schoolmen, that He died sufficiently for all, seems to indicate, as Dr. Cunningham points out, “that when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death” (Hist. Theology, II. 332). The question between those who hold the doctrine of a definite atonement, however, and those who hold by an indefinite atonement is not the question of the sufficiency of the atonement but as we shall its design or intention. “All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary,” says Dr. C. Hodge, “had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through His blood” (Systematic Theology, II. 545).
II.
In maintaining the doctrine of a definite atonement it is not meant that mankind in general even those who ultimately perish do not derive some benefits and advantages from Christ’s death. “They believe,” says Dr. Cunningham, “that important benefits have accrued to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits those who are finally impenitent and unbelieving partake. What they deny is, that Christ intended to procure, or did procure, for all men those blessings which are the proper and peculiar fruits of His death, in its specific character as an atonement, that He procured or purchased redemption, that is, pardon and reconciliation, for all men. Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other. All these benefits were, of course, foreseen by God, when He resolved to send His Son into the world; they were contemplated or designed by Him, as what men should receive and enjoy. They are to be regarded and received as bestowed by Him, and as thus unfolding His glory, indicating His character, and actually accomplishing His purposes; and they are to be viewed as coming to men through the channel of Christ’s mediation, of His sufferings and death” (Hist. Theology, II. 333). This is the position taken up by Turretin, Witsius, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, etc. While this is admitted by Calvinists of unimpeachable orthodoxy yet, it is not meant by them that Christ, in the true and proper Scripture import, substituted himself in the room and stead of all men, or that He made satisfaction to God’s justice for them or that He made satisfaction to God’s justice for them or that He purchased redemption for them. For all this is not true of any but those who are actually at length pardoned and saved.
III.
The question at issue does not concern the nature of Christ’s work. If his death was designed simply by exerting a moral influence on men, it must have been designed indiscriminately for all. But both parties in this controversy—Calvinists and Arminians—reject the Moral Theory of the Atonement. According to this theory all idea of expiation or satisfaction to divine justice by vicarious punishment is rejected and the efficacy of Christ’s work is attributed to the moral effect produced on the hearts of men by His character teaching and acts. This view was first distinctly set forth by Abelard (A.D. 1142). It is the view held in more recent times by the Socinians and in still later times by Jowett (Master of Balliol), Maurice, Young, Bushnell, and Coleridge, in his Aids to Reflection. The same objection applies to the Governmental or Grotian theory of the atonement. According to this view God’s justice is not vindictory but is to be referred to a general governmental rectitude, based on a benevolent regard for the highest ultimate well-being of the subjects of His moral government. If this be so, then, it follows that this work can have no special reference to one man more than another. “All that it can do for any it has done for all.” According to this theory Christ’s death has removed the obstacles out of the way of all and so rendered possible the salvation of each. This theory advanced by Grotius, the great jurist, has never been embodied in the creed of any historical Church. The theory was held by President Edwards, junior, of Union College, Schenectady, New York State, and is styled the Edwardean Theory of the Atonement.*
*It is only right for the sake of the great and worthy name of President Edwards, of Princeton College, to point out that he held the orthodox doctrine of the atonement. The President Edwards referred to above, was a son. The elder Edwards never held the Governmental theory of the atonement.
IV.
What then is the real question involved in the matter at issue? It is this: “Did Christ die with the design of making satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of all men indiscriminately, or on behalf of His elect people given to Him by the Father before the foundation of the world, to be redeemed by Him and to be His inheritance. The answer Calvinists give is: “On behalf of His elect people.” The real question is not a limited atonement implying the limitation of Christ’s sacrifice in value but an atonement that was limited to a certain class, or to use the words of the Westminster Divines: “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation” (Confession of Faith, chap. viii. sect. viii.) and again, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved but the elect only” (chap. iii. sec. vi.). The doctrine of the Reformed Church is, to put it in a few words, that the Lord Jesus Christ died with the design of actually saving His elect people; that is, as Dr. A. A. Hodge puts it, “for the purpose of actually saving those whom He does actually save” (The Atonement, p. 332). 1. The Reformed theologians in their theology taught that it was the design of the redemptive work of Christ to carry into effect the purpose of election. As presented to us in the Confession of Faith God is represented as having, out of His mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life and to all the means thereof and having sent His Son to effect that purpose by His obedience unto death. 2. The love that prompted God to send His Son and the love that prompted His Son to die is set before us in Scripture as the highest conceivable love which made it certain that He will, also, with His Son, freely give the objects of that love all things that His wisdom sees they need and that the objects of that love were a people predestinated from all eternity. 3. That Christ died with the design of making the salvation of those for whom He died certain in pursuance of eternal covenant engagements.* is also the teaching of the Reformed Church. 4. That the purchase of salvation is so connected with its application that it respects the same persons, the latter following upon the former. 5. The Lord Jesus obtained the gracious influences of the Holy Ghost and all the fruits of the Spirit for those for whom He died. These truths were firmly held by the Reformed Church in opposition to the advocates of a universal or indefinite atonement.
*This subject is dealt with by Witsius in his Economy of the Covenants book II. chap ix., at considerable length and also by Dr. Hugh Martin in his work, The Atonement, in which he treats the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus in relation to the covenant of grace. Dr. Watts, Belfast, in lecturing on the atonement, recommended this as one of the most masterly works on the subject and well worthy of perusal by all who valued the truth ably and scripturally presented. It is a book all students of theology should read again and again until they have mastered it.
*Dr. Cunningham says concerning this statement: “Now this latter statement . . . contains, and was intended to contain, the true status quaestionis in the controversy about the extent of the atonement” (Hist. Theology II. 329).
(To be continued.)