Extent of the Atonement. — One of the most important questions in the modern Church with regard to the atonement is that of its extent, viz. whether the bene- fits of Christ's death were intended by God to extend to the whole human race, or only to a part. The for- mer view is called universal or general atonement; the latter, particular, or limited. What is called the strict school of Calvinists holds the latter doctrine, as stated in the Westminster Confession. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eter- nal and most free purpose 'of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elect- ed, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season ; are justified, adopted, sancti- fied, and kept by his power through faith unto salva- tion. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (ch. iii, § 6; comp. also ch. viii, §§ 5 and 8). The so-called moderate (or modern) Calvinists, the Arminians, the Church of England, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, adopt the doctrine of general or universal atonement. See Calvinism. The advocates of a limited atonement maintain that the atonement cannot properly be considered apart from its actual application, or from the intention of the author in regard to its application ; that, in strictness of speech, the death of Christ is not an atonement to any until it be applied ; that the sufferings of the Lamb of God are therefore truly vicarious, or, in other words, that Christ, in suffering, became a real substi- tute for his people, was charged with their sins, and bore the punishment of them, and thus has made a full and complete satisfaction to divine justice in behalf of
ATOXEMEXT
520
ATOXEMEXT
all who shall ever believe on him: that this atonement will e\ entually he applied to all for whom in the divine intention it was made, or to all to whom God in his sovereignty has been pleased to decree its application. But th y believe that although the atonement is to be properly considered as exactly commensurate with its intended application, yet that the Lord Jesus Christ did offer a sacrifice sufficient in its intrinsic value to expiate the sins of the whole world, and that, if it had been the pleasure of God to apply it to every individ- ual, the whole human race would have been saved by its immeasurable worth. They hold, therefore, that, on the -round of the infinite value of the atonement, the offer of salvation can be consistently and sincerely made to all who hear the Gospel, assuring them that if they will believe they shall be saved ; whereas, if [ they wilfully reject the overtures of mercy, they will i increase their guilt and aggravate their damnation. At the same time, as they believe, the Scriptures plain- I ly teach that the will and disposition to comply with this condition depends upon the sovereign gift of God, and that the actual compliance is secured to those only for whom, in the divine counsels, the atonement was specifically intended. The doctrine, on the other hand, that Christ died fcr all men, so as to make sal- i ration attainable by all men, is maintained, first and chiefly, on scriptural ground, viz. that, according to the whole tenor of Scripture, the atonement of Christ was made for all men. The advocates of this view ad- j duce, (1.) Passages which expressly declare the doc- ! trine, [a] Those which say that Christ died "for all i men," and speak of his death as an atonement for the ' sins of the whole world, [b] Those which attribute an equal extent to the death of Christ as to the effects of the fall. (2.) Passages which necessarily imply the doctrine, viz. : [a] Those which declare that Christ died not only for those that are saved, but for those who do or may perish. \b~] Those which make it the duty of men to believe the Gospel, and place them un- der guilt and the penalty of death for rejecting it. [c] Those in which men's failure to obtain salvation is placed to the account of their own opposing w ills, and made wholly their own fault. (See the argument in full, on the Arminian side, in Watson, T/ieol. Institutes, Li, 284 sq. ; Storr and Flatt, Bibl. Theology, bk. iv, pt. ii; Fletcher, Works, ii, 63 ct al.) The Arminian doc- trine is summed up in the declaration that Christ " ob- tained (impetravit) for all men by his death reconcili- ation and the forgiveness of sins, but upon, this con- dition, that none actually possess and enjoy this for- giveness of sins except belie vers" (.4 eta Synod. Eemonst. pt. ii, p. 280 ; Nicholls, Arminianism and Calvinism, p. 114 sq. ). It has been asserted (e. g. by Amyraut, q. v.) that Calvin himself held to general redemption; and certainly his language in his Comm. in Job, iii, 15, 16, and in 1 Tim. ii, 5, seems fairly to assert the doctrine. Cornp. Fletcher, Works (N. Y. ed. ii, 71); but see also Cunningham, The Reformers (Essay vii). As to the variations of the Calvinistic confessions, see Hagen- bach, History of Doctrines, % "2-19. In the French Re- formed Church, the divines of Saumur, Camero, Amy- raldus, and Placseus maintained universal grace (see the articles on these names). The English divines who attended the Synod of Dort (Hall, Hales, Davenant) ;.ll advocated general atonement, in which they were follow,-.] by Baxter (JJn'versal Redemption; Metliodus Tkeolcffice; Orme, l.f< of Beater, ii, 64). The most abb- advocate of universal grace in the 17th century was John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 1G50 (see Ja.k-,. ii. Lift of Goodwin, 1828).