2. This will necessarily confine the discussion to that form which the question assumes when brought in de- bate between those who hold that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect personally, and those who, while maintaining that the design of his death was gene- ral and impersonal, nevertheless more or less fully adhere to the other characteristic: positions of Calvinism. These last again fall into two classes, whose distinguishing char- acteristics materially modify their relations to us in the matter at present in hand: (a.) Those who, like Amy- raldus of Saumur in the sixteenth century, and Ward-
INTRODUCTORY. 325
law,* Balmer, and: John Brown, James Richards + of cmaprsr Auburn Theological Seminary, of the age just past, hold Ne the true doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement with great accuracy, and whose divergence from the theology
of the Reformed Churches is confined to the single point
of the pretended general reference of the Atonement.
(b.) Those who, like Jenkyn, Beman, Barnes, and others,
in various degrees, yet materially, depart from the true faith as to the nature of the Atonement, and whose views as to its indefinite universality are a necessary corollary of their views as to its nature.
As far as the former of these parties is concerned, I think that their exceptional position as to the design or intended application of the Atonement is to be referred to a hardly conscious dissatisfaction with the peculiarities of Calvinism, giving rise to these first movements of an undeveloped and hence unconscious Arminianism ; or, as I hope is true in a majority of cases, and as can be shown to be certainly true in some of them, their divergence on this point is to be referred solely to an absence of clear- ness of thought, and consequent inaccuracy in the use of terms. I believe it ought to be a recognized principle, that when it is certain that men intelligently and honestly agree in maintaining all other peculiarities of Calvinism, and especially accurate views as to the nature of the Atonement, any question as to its design which can possibly arise among such men must be regarded and should be treated as a mere dispute of words. The use of illegitimate language here may mark a tendency, but it cannot, under the conditions I suppose, mark an hereti- cal opinion ; for at this point, and under such conditions,
* Systematic Theology, by Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., vol. ii., chapters XXi1.—-XXVi.
+ Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology, by James Richards, D.D., Lecture xiii.
CHATTER ny
326 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
there is no room for a possible thinkable peculiarity to come in. ‘This, however, does not justify carelessness in defining either in thought or words our own position, nor indifference to the confusion of others. This considera- tion should all the more enforce upon us the necessity of clear views, of exact use of language and of technical definitions upon a central point from which so many roads diverge, which, springing up in apparently un- essential discriminations, instantly lead to irreconcilable conclusions.
As to the latter of the two species of Calvinistie Uni- versalists, with whom our argument in the preceding — part of this volume has been chiefly concerned, we charge that their position as to the design of Christ in dying is only a necessary corollary, dependent upon and subordi- nate to their doctrine as to the nature of his work. The doctrine as to the design of the Atonement is as necessarily and as essentially subordinate to the doctrine as to its nature, with them as itis with us. The attempt: which is often made to exalt the question as to its de- sign into a distinct and independent head of doctrine, the various solutions of which distinguish one school of Calvinistic theologians from another, indubitably proves the want either of candour or of competent knowledge as to the true state of the controversy. We without doubt intend to hold all those who in any way pervert or obscure the true doctrine as to the nature of Christ’s redeeming work to the real point at issue. This in- volves the very essence of salvation by Christ. All men can see that the differences which divide us here are of a vital interest. We insist, moreover, that honour re- quires that each champion shall define the cause in which he appears both exactly and openly. None can be allowed to bring in surreptitiously a defective view as to the nature of the Atonement, under pretence that he is bring-
INTRODUCTORY. 327
ing in only an unimportant distinction as to its general cuarrer reference. At present we have nothing to do with the _” evidence establishing the true doctrine as to its nature. We assume that the strict theory of Satisfaction, as taught in the symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, has been proved in the preceding portion of this volume to be the doctrine taught in Scripture.