The hypothesis of a general and indefinite Atonement admits but of two distinct positions,—that of the Ar- minian, and that of the Calvinistic Universalist. Accord- ing to the Arminian view, the Father and the Son did all that properly belonged to either of them to do to secure the salvation of all men. The Holy Spirit also impartially gives common grace to all men. Each of the divine persons, therefore, is baffled in the mutual design as far as the multitude of the lost is concerned. As far as the intrinsic efficacy of the Atonement is con- cerned, it might have failed in every case, as it has failed in a majority of the cases for which it was designed. Indeed the Atonement has, properly speaking, secured the salvation of no one—has been, on the contrary, de- pendent in every case upon the self-determined choice of sinful men for whatever measure of suecess it has attained. There is, moreover, upon this view, a mysteri- eus want of conformity between God’s dispensation of redemption and his dispensation of providence. In his dispensation of redemption and grace he has done
= Aa
yar)
CHAPTER VI.
——
384 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
all he could to accomplish his design of saving all men indifferently ; while in his dispensation of providence he has withheld those essential conditions of knowledge, without which salvation is simply impossible, from three-fourths of the people living on the face of the earth. .
According to the view of the Calvinistic Universalist, God loved all enough to give his Son to die for them, and yet loved only the elect enough to give them his Spirit. He designed in the sacrifice of his Son to make. the salvation of all men possible, while at the same time he soverelgnly intended that only the elect should be saved. His decree of redemption is conditional, but the conditions were intended to be impossible. His decree of election is unconditional. God went to work at great cost to make the salvation of all men objectively possible, while he at the very same time intended that the salvation of the majority should continue subjectively impossible. God the Redeemer died that all men might be saved if they would believe, after half of them were already in perdition; while God the providential Ruler left two-thirds of the other half permanently ignorant of the fact that any salvation was provided, or of the terms upon which it might be secured. At present this is the view of “advanced thinkers.”
CHAPTER VII.
TUE OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE REFORMED VIEW OF THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT STATED, AND THE ANSWERS TO THEM INDICATED.
Tepralk have now come, in conclusion, to consider the cuarrer AG +e : VII.
principal arguments which the advocates of a
general and indefinite Atonement rely upon as objec-
° ° ° ° - tions refuting our doctrine and as establishing their prougnt own. By far the most considerable of these arguments 2@inst
Reformed
are those founded—1. On the admitted fact of the in- view of discriminate offer of the gospel to all men; 2. On those ieee tah passages of Scripture which say in general terms that mer Christ ‘‘ bore the sins of the world,’ and “suffered for all;’? 3. And on those passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom Christ died.
1. It is claimed that if Christ did not die for the Reformed purpose of providing salvation for all men indifferently, Consistent then the indiscriminate offer of salvation made in the irs
gospel to all men is an empty form, offering the non- offer of elect an atonement, when, as far as he is concerned, no ees atonement has been made. There is unquestionably a 4™”*" difficulty in this neighbourhood, but it will require some discrimination to determine exactly the point upon which the difficulty presses. There are three distinct respects in which a personal and definite Atonement appears to be inconsistent with the indiscriminate offer of salvation, which are sometimes distinctly stated, but are generally jumbled together in a confused charge of inconsistency.
CHAPTER MALES
386 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
These are,—(a.) That if the Atonement was designed only for the elect, it is not consistent with truth that God should offer salvation to all men. (b.) That in such a case there is no solid warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation to all men. (c.) That in such a case there is no solid warrant for any man, who is not privately and infallibly assured of his own election, to rest his trust upon that Atonement, which, although offered to all, was intended only for the benefit of the elect.