WAVING thus presented an accurate and, as I ¥ hope, clear statement of the real question in de- bate, between the representatives of different schools of theology, upon the topic in hand, I now proceed to discuss briefly the true relation which this question as to the design of the Atonement neces- sarily sustains to the previous and more important question as to its nature. It is supposed by many that there is necessarily such a connection between the two that the views entertained as to the one must, in every case, determine those entertained as to the other. There is, Indeed, a good deal of ground for this opinion, yet, in order that we may know exactly how the matter stands, we must examine in detail the bearing which each separate doctrine as to the nature of the Atone- ment has upon the question as to its design.
1. It is very obvious that, upon the hypothesis that Christ’s work was designed to effect its end simply by exerting a moral influence upon men, it must have been designed for all men indiscriminately, at least for all indifferently, to whom it is presented. The whole effect of the Atonement, according to this view, is moral and subjective. And the question of its success, in every
CHAPTER Til,
Different views as to the de- sign of the Atone- ment.
The Moral view.
CHAPTER TES
The Gov- ernment- al view.
The Mer- cantile view.
338 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
given case, is determined by the spontaneous acquies- cence, or the reverse, of the sinner himself.
2. Again, the matter is no less plain from the point of view entertained by the advocates of the Govern- mental Theory as to the nature of Christ’s work. If Christ died only as an example of punishment-—if his sufferings were made a governmental expedient by means of which it is rendered consistent with the gene- ral interests of the divine government for God to remit the punishment of all those who either elect to believe or are by him sovereignly elected to believe—then it necessarily 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 forall. It has removed legal obstacles out of the way of all, and hence has indiffer- ently rendered possible the salvation of each.
3. If the view presented in a little work entitled “Gethsemane,” published in England, and republished in Philadelphia early in this century, is accepted as true —that is, if the vicarious work of Christ is conceived of strictly as a commercial transaction—then, of course, the doctrine that the Atonement is lhmited in the proper sense of that word necessarily follows. If the sufferings of Christ were in exact proportion to the number of his elect and to the amount of heinousness of their sins-—if Christ would have suffered less had he expiated the sins of a smaller number, and if he would have needed to suffer more in order to atone for more,*——then it is plain enough that the Atonement is limited as to its very essence ; just as in a commercial contract between men the purchasing power of a hundred dollars is limited to one hundred dollars’ worth. It has been very convenient to our opponents to charge this view upon the Reformed Churches. That this is altogether a false representation
* Gethsemane, pp. 28, 29.
STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE, 309
I have shown above by reference to chapter and section curren of the testimony of such representatives of Calvinism as Turretin, Witsius, John Owen, and William Cunningham.
4. The entire Lutheran Church agrees with the Re- View os formed as to the natwre of the Atonement. They hold tye that Christ, by his active and passive obedience, fully “™°™ satisfied all the demands of law upon those in whose place he acted, and that he purchased for them the ope-