2. It is claimed that that large class of Scripture passages in which in general terms it is said that Christ “suffered for all,” and gave his life for the “world,” expressly teach that the design of the Atonement was general and impersonal. These passages are such as the following: ‘For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim. u. 5, 6). “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous : and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John i. 1, 2). ‘God so loved the world, that. he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John iii. 16). “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 11. 3, 4). “That he.... should taste death for every man”’ (Heb. 11. 9). It is confessed on all sides that these phrases “all” and “world” do not of themselves necessarily settle the question. When it is said that “there went out a decree from Czesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed” (Luke ii. 1), no man understands that the term “all the world” is to be taken absolutely. It is evident that the only way in which this controversy can be settled is to take up the phrases severally in which
* See “ Hypothesis of a Postponed Atonement,” in Candlish on Atone- ment, part ii., chapters vill, and ix.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 391.
these general terms are used, and subject them, in con- c#aprer, nection with their context, to a thorough critical ex- amination, in order to determine the intent of the inspired writer in each passage taken as a whole; then to do the same thing with each of those passages in which it is asserted, as shown above, that Christ died for the elect; and then, by an impartial comparison of the two classes of passages thus examined, to determine which class is to be taken absolutely, and which is to yield to the other. For a work of this kind I have neither the space nor the taste; nor is it proper, since— as Professor Moses Stuart says in a passage to be quoted below—-such is the state of the question as to the usage of the words “all” and ‘‘ world” in such passages that it cannot be decided by any appeal to grammar or lexi- cons, and belongs rather to the field of the theologian than of the commentator. Believing that I have settled the question on the former ground, in the discussion just closed above, I will now content myself with referring the reader to the triumphant proof afforded by Candlish, in the third chapter of the first part of his admirable work on the Atonement, that these passages, when rightly interpreted, do not in the least contradict our doctrine of a definite Atonement, and with making the following remarks :—
(1.) I would recall a remark made above, that every man familiar with the usage common to all human lan- guages with respect to general terms, will acknowledge that particular and definite expressions must limit the interpretation of the general ones, rather than the reverse. It is plainly far easier to assign plausible reasons why, if Christ died particularly for his elect——they being as yet scattered among all nations and generations, and undistinguishable by us from the mass of fallen humanity to whom the gospel is indiscriminately offered-——he should
392 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
cuarter be said in certain connections to have died for the world
Vit.
—e
or for all, than it can be to assign any plausible reason. why, if he died to make the salvation of all possible, he
should nevertheless be said in any connection to have
died for the purpose of certainly saving his elect.
(2.) Moses Stuart—who, as a theologian, believed in
a general and indefinite Atonement—-was too well in-
formed as an exegete, and too candid as a man, to build
his faith on the class of Scriptural passages to which I
am referring. In his comments on Heb. ii. 9, he says.: ““Vareo mavros means all men without distinction—that
is, both Jew and Gentile. The same view is often given
of the death of Christ. See John ii. 14-17; iv. 42;
xii,.3823 1-John aw 2-; ive 24; 1>Pim) i. 23; 45 Ditus ai,
11; 2 Pet. ii. 9. Compare Rom, 11. 29, 30; x. 11-13,
In all these and the like cases the words all and all men
evidently mean Jew and Gentile. They are opposed to
the Jewish idea that the Messiah was connected appro-
priately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the
blessings of the kingdom were appropriately, if not ex-
clusively, theirs. The sacred writers mean to declare by
such expressions that Christ died really and truly as
well and as much for the Gentiles as for the Jews; that
there is no difference at all in regard to the privileges
of any one who may belong to his kingdom; and that