1. As far, then, as this question is involved in the Arminian controversy, we are ready to admit the reality of the great importance which they attribute to it. If they could prove that the love which prompted God to give his Son to die, as a sin-offering, on the cross, had for its objects all men indiscriminately ; and that Christ actually sacrificed his life with the purpose of saving all indifferently on the condition of faith ; then it appears that their inference is irresistible that the central prin- ciple of Arminianism is true—that is, the principle which makes the destiny of the individual to depend upon his own use of divine grace, and not upon the sovereion good pleasure of God. It is at this point— very wisely, as we think—the Arminian erects his main citadel. We freely admit that just here the advocates of that system are able to present a greater number and variety of texts which appear to favour the distinguish- ing principles of their system than they are able to
INTRODUCTORY. 323
gather in vindication of any other of their main posi- tions. On the topics of divine decrees, of unconditional election of certain persons to faith, and through faith to eternal salvation, and of efficacious as distinguished from common grace, the Scriptures are so obviously as well as overwhelmingly Calvinistic, that our opponents are reduced to the defensive, and are able to do little else than appeal to reason and human conceptions of justice, and attempt in detail to show that the passages of Scrip- ture to which we appeal may possibly mean something less than they appear to say. ‘Thus along a greater por- tion of his line of defences the necessary tactics of the Arminian are as negative, as purely defensive, and as much confined to a skirmish in detail, as is the enforced policy of the Socinian along his line when the Scriptures are appealed to as the medium of proof; while the Cal- vinist carries on an aggressive war upon both. At this point, however—supposing this to be the weakest point of the Calvinistic defences—with their unwonted acces- sion of Scriptural texts, they turn the tables upon us, and force us to the defence of showing, in our turn, why the phrases “all” and ‘‘ world” in their several proof- texts may not or cannot be intended by the Holy Spirit to include all and every man indiscriminately. Then, gathering together their Scriptural evidence for the gene- ral and indefinite design of the Atonement, they proceed, with great appearance of force, to argue inferentially against the out-flanked Calvinistic positions of uncon- ditional election and efficacious grace. In this manner - Richard Watson in effect puts the strain of his entire argument upon this one position. He starts from the demonstration of the indefinite universality of the Atone- ment, and builds up subsequently from that foundation ; thus practically resting the weight of his whole system upon it. “We, on the other hand, claim that it is one
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER bi:
The ques- tion as in- volved in the con- troversy with Cal- vinistic Univer- salists.
324 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
evidence of the superior Biblical character of our system that we are able to bring positive and direct proof in evidence of every doctrine separately, without resting the weight of one upon its logical bearings on others. The true doctrine as to the design of Christ in dying is perfectly consistent with the true doctrines as to election and grace, and every other theory as to the former will be found to be logically inconsistent with the true doc- trine as to the latter; and these consistent doctrines must, in virtue of that very consistency, yield mutual support to one another. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ, both as to its nature and design, 1s a perfect whole in itself, and is abundantly established by direct Scriptural evidence, independent of any relation it may sustain to any other doctrine. At present, however, it is no part of the task I have assumed to show the truth of the Calvinistic and the falsity of the Arminian systems, except in so far as the fate of these systems may be involved in the establish- ment of the true doctrine as to the nature and design of the Atonement. I have the unquestionable right, as far as the present discussion is concerned, to assume the truth of those great Scriptural principles which are characteristic of the Calvinistic system as a whole.