as its opponents imagine. I have shown that the doc- trine presented in the little work entitled “ Gethse- mane’’* never was the accepted doctrine of the Reformed Churches ; and it is precisely against this perversion or caricature of the old Calvinism that the objections in question are directed. (2.) That the doctrine of the definite design of the Atonement is far more inseparably inlocked with the fundamental doctrine of Calvinism — viz., the unconditional eternal election of individuals to eternal life, founded upon the sovereign good pleasure of God—than it is with any peculiar views as to the strictly vicarious and penal character of Christ’s sufferings. (3.) That it is not necessary for men to adopt false views as to the nature of the Atonement in order to support them in their prejudiced preference for confused views as to its extent. Let them prefer to occupy the ground of the Lutherans—an honourable company of scholars and saints, who hold at once the strictest views as to the sin-expiating, justice-satisfying nature of the Atone- ment, and the broadest views as to its indefinite and universal design. 2
11. The origin, history, and logical development of this doctrine, demonstrate that it is radically and neces-
CHAPTER XX,
Its Ar- minian origin
sarily inconsistent with the system of Calvinism. The Proves its
idea of an integral element of Calvinism being generated out of the speculative development of Arminianism is as absurd as that of looking for figs from thistles——or, if you please, for thistles from figs, The germ of the Governmental Theory was furnished by Hugo Grotius. ' Coleridge says of what is called Arminianism, that, “taken as a complete and explicit scheme of belief, it would be both historically and theologically more accu- rate to call it Grotianism, or Christianity according to Grotius.” + * Part ii., chap. iil. t Coleridge’s Works, Shedd’s edit., vol. i., p. 208. 21
inconsist-
ency with Calvinism.
CHAPTER XXII.
320 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
We have shown that this theory leads to essentially Arminian views—(1) as to the nature of justification, in chapters xiv. and xviii. ; and (2) as to an indefinite and general Atonement, in Part II., chapter i. It is suffi- ciently plain that the adoption of Arminianism on these points involves logically the definite adoption of Arminian- ism as a whole, as the immediate tendency and ultimate result. We are glad to believe that the conviction is becoming very general, among those who have been fore- most in testing the “improvements,” that the Calvinism of the Reformed Churches is a self-contained system which must be either received or rejected as a whole. The doctrines of Satisfaction, Imputation, &c., are found not to be excrescences, but in such a sense integral and inseparable, that the system becomes untenable to those who will not admit them.
oie
Peo err ele
Che Mesign or Intended Application of the Atonement,
CHAPTER. L
INTRODUCTORY.
oe HE Design or Intended Application of the cuarrur =| Atonement. Did Christ die with the design _" of making satisfaction to divine justice in 72 we
tion as to behalf of all men indiscriminately, or in nee behalf of his elect seed personally and definitely ? anon
We consider this a question whose interest is less essential and intrinsic than derived from its relation to principles which are intrinsically important, and funda- mental to the system of faith known as Evangelical. I claim to have established, on its own independent evi- dence, the great question concerning the Vatwre of the Atonement, which is the real interest for the sake of - which this book is written. There, and not under the present head, lie the principles which are the true cause of debate between us and our present opponents. I take up this question as to the design and personal reference of the atoning work of Christ only as it is subsidiary to the former ; and for the purpose chiefly of analyzing the
CHAPTER I.
The ques- tion con- sidered as involved in the Ar- minian contro- versy.
322 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT,
question and defining its real elements, and of showing the necessary relations which they sustain to the other elements of the system of faith—as, for instance, to the nature of the Atonement, and to the sovereignty of the divine decrees.
It is evident that the opinion that the Atonement is general and indefinite must be held and defended by the Calvinistic Universalist under conditions very different from those under which it is comprehended and vindi- cated by the far more consistent Arminians. I propose, therefore, in order to clear the way for the accurate understanding of the elements involved in this question in all their bearings, to consider for a moment the design of the Atonement—(a) as it is involved in our contro- versy with the Arminians ; and (b) as it is involved in our controversies with the abettors of the various modifi- cations of Calvinism.