THE ATONEMENT
IN ITS
RELATIONS TO GOD AND MAN
By
The Rev. NATHAN S. S. BEMAN, D.
D THE EXTENT OF THE
ATONEMENT HAVING already considered the
necessity, the reality, and the nature of the atonement, the
way is now prepared to enter on an examination of its
EXTENT. Two opinions have prevailed, and do still prevail,
in the Christian Church, in relation to this important
point; and it is the object of the present inquiry to
ascertain, if possible, the real state of the case, in
relation to these conflicting opinions, as presented in the
oracles of the living God. Before we proceed to the merits
of the question, it is proper to have a clear and distinct
apprehension of its import. The point now to be settled is,
whether Christ died to make an atonement for the sins of the
elect alone, or those who will finally be saved, or whether
his sacrifice is general and ample, opening the door of
mercy to our sinful race. It is readily perceived, that the
principles defended in the last chapter, in relation to the
nature of this satisfaction, must have an intimate
connection with this point. If the atonement is to be
considered as the literal payment of a debt, or, in other
words, if it consisted in suffering the exact penalty of the
law, in the room of those who will be saved, it is manifest,
that it must be limited in its extent. In this case it would
be a provision which must be regulated according to the
principles of commutative justice. If one soul were to be
saved by the atonement, Christ must sustain an amount of
suffering equal to that involved in the eternal condemnation
of that one soul; and if a thousand were to be saved, Christ
must suffer a thousand times that amount, and in the same
proportion for any greater number who are to be rescued from
perdition and exalted to glory. To this scheme there are
insurmountable objections. The most important of these have
been already stated, and others very naturally suggest
themselves in this place. Such a view of the sufferings of
Christ apportioning them exactly and definitively to the
number of those who will be saved, is no where sanctioned or
so much as hinted at in the Bible. It would seem too that
Christ could not, in this sense, have atoned for the sins of
men; for not-withstanding his divinity, his human nature was
alone susceptible of suffering. Now as a single sin deserved
eternal misery, which certainly implies infinite
suffering-we cannot see how every sin of all the redeemed
could have been expiated, in a few short hours, by the
agonies endured by the human nature of Christ, though this
nature was united to the Godhead. Jesus Christ could not
have made an adequate atonement if this atonement implied,
that he must endure sufferings equal in quantum to the
eternal damnation of all those who will finally be saved.
This point can be made clear. The Godhead could not suffer;
and while the passion of Jesus Christ on the cross was, no
doubt, greatly increased in dignity by the union of his
human nature with the divine, it was, nevertheless, humanity
alone that suffered. This humanity, however elevated, was
finite, and no finite being could, in a limited time, endure
the infliction of an infinite penalty. There are but two
ways in which an infinite penalty, or, which is the same
thing, an infinite amount of natural evil, can be endured by
any being. One is, the sufferer may be finite, and the
duration infinite; the other, the sufferer may be infinite,
and the duration finite. The lost sinner, in the unwasting
ages of eternity, will suffer such a penalty, or endure such
an amount of natural evil; and Jesus Christ might have
suffered an equal penalty, or have endured an equal amount
of evil, in a few hours of agony on the cross, if the divine
nature had actually suffered with the human. But as the
sufferings of Christ, as God, will not be maintained by any,
the argument on this point is decisive: Jesus Christ did not
sustain the full amount of wrath which would have been, to
all eternity, inflicted on all those who will be saved by
his death. On the other hand, if the atonement
consisted, as has been shown in the former chapter, in the
infliction of such sufferings upon the Lord Jesus Christ as
would amply vindicate the divine character, and sustain the
government of God, in the salvation of sinners, then an
atonement sufficient for one, would be an atonement
sufficient for all. If, in one word, this atonement merely
opened the door of mercy-if it prepared the way for the
offer and the exercise of pardon, then it must go upon the
broad ground, and limitation is out of the
question. But there is another kind of
testimony in favor of a general atonement, which remains to
be exhibited; testimony which the plainest christian can
comprehend, which is either drawn from the express
declarations of the scriptures, or founded on the obvious
and acknowledged principles of the gospel. That the
atonement made by Jesus Christ is general in its character,
may be fully established by the following
considerations. The invitations or offers of the
gospel, are made indiscriminately to all. This declaration,
it is presumed, will not be denied or doubted by those who
are well acquainted with their Bibles. Such passages as the
following speak of the largeness and freedom of the gospel
call. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
earth." "Repent ye, and believe the gospel," "Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The
declaration, made to those who were invited to the feast of
salvation in the parable, was, "Behold, I have prepared my
dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things
are ready; come unto the marriage." And those who were thus
invited to come and partake of the entertainment already
prepared for them, are the identical persons who "made light
of it, and went their ways," and were eventually destroyed
for their contempt and rejection of the call. This was a
practical illustration of the principle which is stated at
the close of the parable. "Many are called, but few are
chosen." That is, many are invited to the gospel feast who
never come-many enjoy the free and gracious offer of all
those blessings which are connected with the atonement, but
continuing to reject this offer, they give evidence that
they belong not to the number of God's chosen and peculiar
people, and they necessitate their own
destruction. In support of the declaration, that
the invitations of the gospel are made to all, we might
transcribe page after page of the Bible. Upon this fact
depends the whole business of preaching the gospel. "We pray
you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" -- "The
spirit and the bride say, come. And let him that heareth
say, come. And let him that is athirst, come: And whosoever
will, let him take the water of life freely." But it is granted by many, that the
calls of the gospel are made indiscriminately to sinners,
and yet it is contended that the atonement is limited to a
definite number in its extent. A few plain questions, may
place this business at rest. Upon what are the calls and
invitations of the gospel founded? The answer is, upon the
atonement; since if this atonement had never been made by
Jesus Christ, there could have been no offer of mercy to
apostate man. The atonement is the foundation and the offer
is the superstructure; and we may with propriety ask, on
what principle the latter can be greater than the former! We
propose another question. Are sinners under obligations to
hear and obey the gospel call? We mean are all men under
obligations to hear and obey? If not, there is no sin
committed in rejecting Christ and his salvation. But if all
who hear the declarations of mercy as stated in the gospel,
are under obligations to look to Christ for salvation; to
repent and believe the gospel; to come to the marriage
feast-then one of two things must be true. There must be a
general provision made for them in the atonement, or some
are under obligations to do that which would be of no avail
to them even in case of their compliance. They are
commanded, and are under obligations to look to Jesus Christ
for salvation, and yet Jesus Christ never lived or died to
open the door for their recovery--they are commanded, and
are under obligations to repent, and believe the gospel,
when, at the same time, this gospel has made no preparation
for their return to God--they are commanded, and are under
obligations to come, and partake of the marriage-feast, when
in all the munificence of this entertainment there is not
one particle of provision made for them. There need be no
hesitation in saying that, in these cases, moral obligation
cannot exist; and, upon these principles, moral obligation
can never be enforced. This is rearing a structure without a
foundation; an edifice without a corner-stone. In addition to all this, men are
expressly upbraided and condemned for not complying with the
gospel offer, or for not becoming interested in the
atonement made by Jesus Christ. "This is the condemnation," says our
Savior, "that light has come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
On another occasion, "began he to upbraid the cities wherein
most of his mighty works were done, because they repented
not." Of the stubborn and unbelieving Jews he complained in
these terms, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have
life." Should it be said, in relation to these passages,
that they rather reprove men for resisting the miracles and
instructions of Christ, than for rejecting the atonement, we
reply, that the miracles and instructions of Christ, were
the means of benefit and salvation to sinners only as they
were connected with the sacrifice which he offered for their
redemption; and the rejection of the one, implied the
rejection of the other. But that sinners are under
obligations to embrace the gospel, and are guilty in the
sight of God for rejecting its provisions-may be established
beyond the possibility of evasion, from the parable of the
marriage feast. Certain persons were invited to this
entertainment upon the strength of the provision which was
in readiness; and they made light of it and would not come.
For this act they were not only blamed, but condemned and
punished. "When the king heard thereof, he was wroth; and he
sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers and
burned up their city." In the parallel parable, in another
Evangelist, it is said, "None of those men who were bidden
shall taste of my supper." It is a given point, that these
men who refused to come to the feast, represent those
persons who finally perish. Now the question is, was there,
or was there not, an atonement, or provision made for such
in the gospel of Christ? Those who hold to a limited
atonement say that there was not-but to us it appears
abundantly evident, from the parable, that there was. It is
so asserted in the invitation. "All things are ready; come
unto the marriage." And again, "Come, for all things are now
ready." If it be a fact, that the atonement is limited to
that particular number who will come to the gospel feast and
be saved, then this invitation was not founded in truth,
There is no basis to support it. If it resembles the rainbow
in its circular magnificence, it is like it more as
insubstantial and stationed on nothing. For these persons,
there was nothing ready; for them there was no provision
made. The punishment too inflicted upon these persons tells
us, that there was an entertainment made for them, or in
other words, provision for their salvation. Why were they
doomed never to taste of the supper, and why were they given
up to the devastations of fire and sword? It was because
they refused to come and partake of a certain feast which
they were assured was provided for them. Now if there was no
such provision in this feast, then they are condemned and
punished for rejecting and despising that which never
existed in relation to themselves. They are condemned and
punished for not partaking of an entertainment which was
made for others, and not for them. Such a representation as
this-with reverence be it spoken--is a libel upon the
character of Jehovah! The argument drawn from this parable
in favor of a general atonement, is as clear as the light of
meridian day. The conclusion, is incontrovertible as the
positions of eternal truth. It is best seen like the sun, in
its own light. But this is not all. Rejecters of the
gospel are every where represented, in the Bible, as more
miserable in the future world, than those who have sinned,
only against the law. If this declaration be true, it
speaks, in strong and decided language, in favor of a
general atonement. The inquiry will first respect the fact,
and then its application to the point in hand. That the despisers of Jesus Christ
and his salvation will perish, with an aggravated
destruction--a destruction enhanced by the consideration
that they have had a price put into their hands to get
wisdom, but have had no heart to improve it-is manifest from
the whole tenor of the gospel. This sentiment is implied in
several of the scriptures which have been quoted under the
former heads of the present discourse. It is strongly
intimated in the parable of the supper; and is more directly
and distinctly taught in other parts of the Bible. Of
Capernaum our Savior declared, "I say unto you, that it
shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of
judgment, than for thee." "But those mine enemies, who would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay
them before me." "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and
perish." "He that despised Moses law died without mercy,
under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith HE was sanctified, an unholy thing, and
hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?" Now it may be asked, why the doom of
Capernaum will be more intolerable in the day of judgment,
than that of Sodom--unless it is, because Capernaum was
favored with gospel privileges which Sodom never enjoyed,
privileges which ought to have made her better, privileges
which she was bound to improve to her salvation? But what is
the gospel without the atonement? If Capernaum was more
guilty, and will be ultimately more miserable, for rejecting
the gospel, than those are, or can be, who are not
chargeable with this sin--then Capernaum was under
obligations to embrace Christ, and be saved by his merits;
and if under obligations to embrace Christ and be saved by
his merits, then the atonement must have been offered to
Capernaum on the same terms on which it is offered to
others. To suppose that God would offer that to his
creatures which has no existence and then punish them for
not embracing it, is to charge him with insincerity and
duplicity and empty show. Why will the enemies of Christ be
brought forth in the day of judgement, and be slain before
him? The crime alleged against them, and for which they are
especially punished is an unwillingness to submit to his
mediatorial reign; that is, an unwillingness to embrace the
atonement and welcome his salvation. Does not this imply,
that the atonement might have reached their case? Why will
it be said to some, hereafter, "behold ye despisers, and
wonder, and perish"--unless it is, that an atonement has
actually been offered to them, and that this atonement which
was offered as an adequate ground for their personal and
identical salvation, was a reality and not a deception? Why
does a "sorer punishment" await the despiser of the gospel,
than the transgressor of the law? It is because he has
"trodden under foot the Son of God." He was under
obligations to receive him as the atoning victim--as the
propitiation for sin--as the all sufficient Savior. For not
doing this, he is now condemned; and if this sentence of
condemnation is just, then Christ was offered to him before
he could be trodden under foot; and he must have made an
atonement for this very character before he could be
sincerely offered. To deny these conclusions, is to set
scripture, and logic, and common sense, at defiance for the
sake of a theory! Let it not be forgotten, by the
honest inquirer after truth, that unbelief, and not the
limitation of the atonement, is EVERY WHERE, represented in
the Holy Scriptures, as the reason why sinners, under the
administration of gospel truth, finally perish. Here it may
be proper to call to mind the representations which we have
before given of the mature of that propitiation made by
Jesus Christ. The atonement does not of itself save a single
soul. It barely opens the door for the accomplishment of
this object by free and sovereign grace. "By grace are ye
saved through faith." Hence the importance attached to faith
in the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel. It is by
this exercise, that we receive the atonement, and rest upon
it for justification and eternal life. "He that believeth,"
not he that is atoned for, "shall be saved," and "he that
believeth not," not he that has no atonement made for him,
"shall be damned." Now this scheme lays the blame of the
sinner's condemnation where it ought to lie, upon his
unbelief, and not upon the plan of God. And so it is every
where represented in the gospel. "He that believeth not is
condemned already, because he bath not believed in the name
of the only begotten Son of God." Why are sinners condemned
under the operation of the gospel of Christ? It is because
they have "not believed in the name of the only begotten Son
of God." It is not, in any sense to be ascribed to a
deficiency in the atonement. But in order to agree with the
limited scheme, the declaration ought to read, the non-elect
or reprobates are "condemned already," and must finally
perish, because they have no provision made for them in the
atonement of "the only begotten Son of God." But we have not
so learned the gospel of Christ. Take one declaration more
of the same character. "If ye believe not that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins." Some of those Jews whom Christ
addressed, would finally perish-not because his blood could
not avail in their behalf, but because they would continue
to reject this only way of reconciliation appointed by the
Father. "If ye believe not," is the declaration of the Son
of God. The whole stress is laid on not
BELIEVING. And in the day of judgment, the
rejection, and not the want of the atonement, will be the
ground upon which the final and decisive sentence will be
passed. At least this will be the case so far as men have
enjoyed the light, and received the instructions of the
gospel. Under the operation of that system of eternal love
introduced by Jesus Christ, unbelief, and unbelief alone,
closes the gates of heaven, and opens the door of the
eternal pit, and rivets the chains of reprobation fast upon
the soul of the sinner. The whole world may be safely
challenged to show in the Bible any other representation of
this matter. There is a settled uniformity in the language
of inspiration, on this point. Sinners die, not because
there has been no Savior provided for them--not because he
has not atoned for their sins, not because this atonement
has not been offered to them, and urged upon them, not
because Jesus Christ is indifferent to their eternal
welfare; but, because they deliberately and perseveringly
reject the proffered grace, and thus make the bands of death
strong upon themselves. But the scriptures expressly teach,
that the atonement is general and unrestricted in its
nature. A few passages contained in the Bible, selected from
many bearing on this point, will here be presented and
examined. The apostle John, in his first Epistle tells us,
that "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world." This
language is very clear and very emphatic. He has atoned for
the sins of "THE WHOLE WORLD." This phrase, "the whole
world" is by the opponents of the doctrine of an
unrestricted and universal atonement, limited to the elect,
or those who will ultimately share in its benefits. But this
is a mere assumption which would appear to be made simply
for the purpose of sustaining a favorite theory. It involves
a manifest departure from the just and obvious principles of
biblical exposition. "The world," or what is still more
expressive, "the whole world," is here contrasted with the
church, or the collective body of believers; and in this
connection it can mean nothing else than the whole body of
unbelievers--without any reference to election in any
possible shape. We say the contrast here is between
believers and unbelievers, and not between believers and the
elect. The import of the declaration is this: Jesus Christ
is the propitiation for the sins of believers and not only
so, but for the sins of all unbelievers too. When John the Baptist pointed his
inquiring countrymen to Jesus Christ, he said, "Behold the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." It is
easy to say, as in the former case, that the term "world"
here means the elect; but this is a mere gratuity, and is
unsupported by the Bible. It is a correct principle of
exposition, that a term should be taken in its ordinary and
most simple acceptation, unless the context, or some
unequivocal declaration of the spirit of God elsewhere
recorded, may render a different construction necessary. Had
John the Baptist intended to teach the doctrine of a limited
atonement, he would probably have pointed to the lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the church or of his chosen
people. The apostle Paul, in his second
Epistle to the Corinthians, assumes the doctrine of a
general atonement as a given point; and, from the
universality of the propitiation, argues the universality of
human depravity. "Because we thus judge, that if one died
for all, then were all dead." A remark or two will give this
passage an important bearing on the point in hand. Let it be
asked, who are the subjects of spiritual death? The answer
must be, all mankind. If we push the inquiry one step
farther, and ask, for whom did Christ die? The answer must
be, according to this passage, for all those who are the
subjects of spiritual death; that is, for all mankind. "If
one died for all, then were all dead," or (in the original)
"then all died." And the proposition is equally true, though
stated in a different order. If all mankind were dead in
trespasses and sins, then Jesus Christ died for them
all. In his first Epistle to Timothy, this
same apostle tells us, that Christ "gave himself a ransom
for all." This declaration, if critically examined, will
furnish a conclusive argument in favor of a general
atonement. (See I. Tim. 2: 1-6,) The apostle exhorts, that
supplications, &e. "be made for all men: for kings, and
for all that are in authority." He urges this duty of
praying for all men upon two different grounds, the
benevolence of God who is willing that all men should be
saved, and the atonement made by Christ who gave himself a
ransom for all. Now we are here directed to pray "for all
men," that is, for all mankind. This, we presume, will not
be denied. And is it not equally true, that God is willing
that all men who are the subjects of these supplications,
should be saved? Or does he command all men to believe and
be saved, and at the same time, is unwilling that some
should obey his own express injunction? This can hardly be
admitted. And if christians are to pray for all
men, and God is willing that all men should come to the
knowledge of the truth and be saved, do not these
supplications of the christian, and this benevolent feeling
of God respecting the salvation of all men, grow out of the
ransom which Christ has offered "for all"? If we limit the
term "all," in this last case, to the elect, then the
apostle's argument will stand thus. Christ gave himself a
ransom for all the elect, and consequently God is willing
that all the elect should be saved; and, therefore,
christians ought to pray for all mankind. This reasoning
does not hold together. The legs of the lame are not equal.
The inference is too broad for the premises. The proper
conclusion from these premises, thus gratuitously assumed,
would be, that we ought to pray only for the elect; for the
same reason which would lead us to restrict the term "all,"
in two instances, would lead us to restrict it in the third.
If the apostle reasons correctly in this passage, he does
insist upon the propriety of praying for all mankind from
the universal benevolence of God, and the universality of
the ransom offered by Jesus Christ. We are conducted to the same
conclusion by another verse of this paragraph, "For there is
one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus." The mediatorial work of Christ is here
represented as carried on between "God and men." These are
the parties. God stands upon one side of the great question
which Christ has undertaken to bring to issue, and "men,"
that is mankind, or the human race, on the other. In
prosecuting his work as mediator, he has given "himself a
ransom" to one of these parties for the other; that if, a
ransom to God for men-for all men-for the offending race
without exception. There is "one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for
all." The connection between [________], men, in the
fifth verse, and [______], all, in the sixth verse,
justifies the construction which we have given above. The
ransom was given for that whole offending party between whom
and God, the work of mediation was conducted by Jesus
Christ. In his letter to the Hebrews, the
apostle tells us that Jesus Christ "was made a little lower
than the angels-that he by the grace of God should taste
death for every man." The expression "was made a little
lower than the angels" is only a circumlocution employed to
assert the fact, that Christ became man; and the apostle was
led to adopt this phraseology from what he had said of the
original condition of the human race, in the context. He
became man, that he might taste death for man-"for every
man"-for mankind without distinction. He became himself
partaker of human nature, "that he by the grace of God
should taste death, "____ ______" for each and every part of
human nature. The apostle Peter speaks of certain
false teachers who "bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift
destruction." Who these are, it is not necessary to the
present argument to determine. It is sufficient for our
purpose to know that they perish, and are, at the same time,
persons who were bought with the blood of Christ. This
passage furnishes perfect demonstration, that the atonement
made by Christ and the actual redemption of sinners are not
commensurate, or of equal extent. Some are "bought" by the
Lord himself, who, for their adherence to sin, are
overwhelmed with "swift destruction." They were atoned for,
and yet are lost. An attempt has been made to set aside this
conclusion by denying, that there is any reference here to
the atonement which has been made for sinners. It is
asserted that the word [________], which is here
translated Lord, is never applied to Jesus Christ in the
Bible. But this is not altogether certain. In Rev. vi. 10.
the same word is applied either to the Father or the Son;
and Macknight is inclined to favor the opinion, that it is
applied to the latter. Be this, however, as it may, it can
have but little influence upon the present question. The
word may be employed to denote the Son with the same
propriety with which it is employed to denote the Father;
and were the passage quoted from Peter the only one in which
it was used to designate the Lord Jesus Christ, this fact
would by no means invalidate the argument. As it is a word
applicable to the Godhead, the context must determine which
Person it is intended, in any particular instance, to
denote. Jesus Christ is the Lord or Master to whom these
"false teachers" professed subjection; and he is that being
who has "bought" sinners with his blood. And some who were
thus bought, will, by, "denying the Lord," "bring upon
themselves swift destruction." It appears then, that some
persons are atoned for who will finally perish. See the
views of Calvin on this passage, in the introductory chapter
of this work. The manner in which the advocates of limited
atonement dispose of this passage, is by no means
satisfactory. One passage more, and only one, will
be adduced in favor of general atonement. It is the
declaration of Christ himself. "For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." The
advocates of a limited atonement, have had great trouble
with this text. As usual, "the world" here must be made to
signify the elect. To say nothing of this arbitrary and
unnatural construction, this reading will not very well
agree with what immediately follows. "God so loved the"
ELECT, (that is those who will finally believe, and who
shall not perish, but have everlasting life,) "that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever," of all this number,
"believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting
life." Now, this is putting absurdity into the lips of
infinite wisdom. It is inditing poor rhetoric and bad logic
for the Holy Spirit. But take the passage just as it stands,
and its truth and simplicity are apparent "God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son" to die for this
world, "that whosoever "of all this world which God loved
and for which the Savior died, "believeth in him, should not
perish, but have everlasting life" There are other declarations of the
Bible on which great stress is laid by those who maintain
the doctrine of a limited atonement, and which are
considered by many as settling the question in its favor.
The following are of this class. "The good Shepherd giveth
his life for the sheep"--"feed the church of God which he
hath purchased with his own blood." "Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it." Upon these scriptures it
is obvious to remark, that not one of them is contradicted
by the doctrine of a general atonement, because they do not
assert, that the good Shepherd gave "his life for the
sheep," and for them alone; or that the church was
exclusively loved and purchased. This construction would
contradict other parts of the inspired volume. If Jesus
Christ tasted death "for every man," he did of course lay
down "his life for the sheep"--and if he gave himself a
"ransom for all," he certainly did give himself, at the same
time, a ransom for "the church." It is readily admitted by
those who maintain the universality, or the general
character of the atonement, that the individuals intended in
the collective terms, "sheep" and" the church of God," are
the only persons who are effectually benefited by the
propitiation made by Jesus Christ. They alone rest upon it,
and are grateful for it. Its full effect, or design, is
accomplished in them; and hence there is a peculiar force
and emphasis in the declarations cited above. But in all
these declarations, there is no denial of a general
provision,-no intimation, that Jesus Christ did not so die
for all men, as to remove every legal obstruction to their
salvation. A few important truths may be
appended, by way of inference, to the present discussion.
One is, that a limited atonement would be an impeachment of
the divine character. Compare, for a moment, the different
and various aspects of a limited atonement with the plain
declarations of the Bible and the acknowledged principles of
the gospel, which have been stated in this chapter. It has
been clearly proved, that the call of the gospel, which
includes an obligation to believe in Christ, and to rest on
him for eternal life, is made to all without distinction, to
a world of sinners. And what can support a general offer,
unless it be a general provision? Does it correspond with
that truth and sincerity which belong to God, in an infinite
degree, to proffer to his creatures, nay to urge and press
upon his creatures, that which never had an existence? And
yet this God is represented as doing, if the call of the
gospel is universal, and the atonement made by Christ, is,
at the same time, partial or limited. This view of the
atonement does represent God as offering more to sinners
than was ever provided by his Son, and presented in the
gospel. But the objection goes much farther than this.
Sinners are expressly condemned for not becoming interested
in that atonement or provision which is offered; and yet for
them, on the limited scheme, no such atonement or provision
was ever made. And this is not all. These rejecters of the
gospel and despisers of the atonement, must feel the effects
of their conduct to all eternity. It shall be more tolerable
for Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for
them. But why? What have they done? According to the
principles of those who limit the atonement, they have
rejected a certain provision which was never offered to
them; or, if offered, which was never made; which was
restricted to others while they were expressly excluded;
which could not, from the very nature of its stipulations,
include them and supply their necessities, even if they had
complied with the invitation and obeyed the command. In
addition to all this, they are every where assured, in the
sacred volume, that their ruin is altogether attributable to
themselves. Unbelief is represented, under the
administration of the gospel, as the great damning sin. And
yet if the atonement is partial and limited, unbelief is
inevitable. It must take place by a physical necessity, for
there is no foundation for faith. Its exercise, for the want
of which the sinner is condemned, would imply a natural
impossibility. Indeed, for God to require the sinner, for
whom no atonement has been made, to believe in the
atonement, and to rely upon this atonement for his personal
salvation, is to require him to believe what is not true.
There is no hazard in saying, that the God of the Bible has
never required any such thing. On the theory of the
limitarian, no atonement was ever made for those who reject
it, and finally perish. To believe there was, would be to
believe a false statement or position; and yet for the want
of this belief he must endure a more accumulated and
dreadful weight of divine wrath than would have been
inflicted under the law. Here is a course of reasoning never
adopted in any parallel case. Here is a direct impeachment
of the character of Jehovah. It is surely high time, that
christians should thoroughly understand, and correctly apply
the great principles of revelation to the investigation of
this subject. It is the truth alone that can roll away the
reproach which has often assailed the divine government on
this point. In the above nothing has been said of
the express contradiction between the scheme of a limited
atonement and the plain declarations of the Bible. The
restrictive system says, that Christ is "the propitiation"
for the sins of the elect, and for theirs alone; the apostle
John teaches us, that he is likewise the propitiation "for
the sins of the whole world." This system declares, that
Christ "gave himself" for the church alone; the apostle Paul
tells us, that he "gave himself a ransom for all." The
scheme which is here controverted teaches, that Christ died
for a part only of the human race; the Bible expressly
declares, that he "died for all"--that he tasted "death for
every man." This human theory would have us believe, that
atonement and salvation are equally broad; but the inspired
volume affirms, that some deny "the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction." The preceding inquiry leads us to the
contemplation of the great purposes to be answered by a
general atonement. It is sometimes said that no great object
can be obtained by a general atonement, if, after all, but a
part of mankind participate the saving benefit. But this
objection is founded on an imperfect and limited view of the
subject. If the atonement is what it has been represented to
be, in this treatise, a preliminary to the offer of pardon
and peace; if it contains such a provision for sinners in
general as to lay them under obligations to believe in
Christ, and turn to God, and live; if it has furnished a new
set of motives which ought to affect the hearts and conduct
of men, as moral beings; if it proposes the terms of eternal
life for the reception or rejection of which we must render
an account, and the consequences of which we must feel while
eternity endures, then it is obvious, that the most
important results are connected with such a provision. As it
respects God, it is an exhibition of his benevolence, and as
it respects man, it opens the door for his return to the
friendship and service of his Maker. At all events, it must
and will reveal to the universe the moral temper of the
sinner's heart, and show what he deserves, by exhibiting the
circumstances in which he goes down to ruin! By the moral law, the whole human
race must stand condemned at the bar of God. Under this
system there could be no escape. Despair and death would
look every sinner in the face. Instead of executing this law
upon us, God has "found a ransom." He has placed us once
more, as it were, in reach of heaven. The door is thrown
wide open before us. The terms, as founded upon the
atonement, are, "He that believeth shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned." This system will fully
vindicate the divine character from every charge of cruelty
in the death of the sinner. Not a shadow of reproach call
rest on it. On the broad basis of a general provision, God
may proclaim through heaven, and earth, and his illimitable
universe, "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure
in the death of the wicked." Does the reader of this
declaration believe, that such a rich and munificent
provision has been made for the dying outcasts of our world?
Oh! let him recollect, that the very fact of such an
atonement, should make him solemn even to fearfulness and
trembling. Every expectant of eternity should feel his own
personal relations to this great gospel fact. It will
prepare for every individual to whom its offers are made, a
starry crown in heaven, or kindle for him a fiercer flame
below! How full of interest, how fearful is the fact, that
Christ has died for sinners! This fact creates a
responsibility on the part of every hearer of the gospel,
from which there is no escape. Life or death is the certain
consequence. One thought more, and this great
theme shall be dismissed. The views of the atonement here
presented, throw much light on certain passages of scripture
which are sometimes quoted in favor of universal salvation.
We must carefully and critically distinguish between
atonement and actual redemption; between the provision made
on the part of Christ, and its cordial reception on the part
of the sinner. The atonement prepares the way for man's
return to God; the application of this atonement, or its
reception on the part of the sinner, actually brings him
back, and secures to him, in the covenant of grace, a title
to the heavenly inheritance. The doctrine of general
atonement, if properly understood, has no connection with,
universal salvation. There is no more connection between
them, than there was between the ample and extensive
entertainment mentioned in the parable, and the refreshment
of those who utterly refused to come to the feast. Of what
avail to them was the munificence of the marriage supper,
when they preferred, and continued to prefer their own
personal employments and pleasures? While "they made light"
of the invitation, and went one to his farm and another to
his merchandise, that feast could do them no good. It could
afford them neither pleasure nor profit. Indeed it left
them, in a very material point, worse than it found them. It
brought them under the responsibilities created by a kind
and gracious invitation, and eventually fixed upon them the
guilt of its pertinacious and wanton rejection. And so it is with the atonement made
by Christ. It is sufficient for all; but it will no more
save those who refuse to embrace it, than a sumptuous feast
will satisfy the hunger of those who refuse to partake of
the proffered bounty. General atonement furnishes a
consistent ground for the publication of the glad tidings of
the gospel. An atonement for all, will justify and sustain
the offer of salvation to all. The result will be directed
by the wise providence, and the sovereign grace of God. The
final consequence will be a sentence of acquittal to the
believer, and of condemnation upon the
unbeliever. Those who have contended, that the
salvation of all men, would follow as a consequence from the
doctrine of a general provision in the atonement, have
uniformly entertained incorrect notions respecting the
nature of this transaction. They have looked upon this whole
affair as regulated by the principles of commutative
justice. If it were the province of the atonement to repeal
the curse, and liberate the sinner from all legal
obligation, then, it would be readily acknowledged, that a
general satisfaction must be followed by a general
redemption of the human race. But the preceding examination
of this subject has proved, that such an inference is
unauthorized and untrue, and the whole system built on it,
is unsound. By students of the Bible, by thinking men, by
logical minds,--by those who endeavor carefully to trace out
the beautiful and harmonious connections of philosophy and
religion, it must and will be yielded as untenable. An
atonement which cancels guilt, and annihilates
responsibility, has never been made. Such an atonement, with
reverence be it said, could not have been devised. Of such a
provision, the Bible breathes not a whisper. There is an
atonement which permits God, in perfect consistency with all
the perfections of his nature and with all the important
ends of law and government, to offer salvation to a guilty
and expiring world. This same atonement lays the sinner who
hears the gospel, under obligations to return to God; and,
under the mediatorial system, his eternal destiny is
suspended on his acceptance or rejection of the offered
mercy. As to the believer, his sins are freely pardoned
through the blood of Christ, and the Almighty arms surround,
sustain and guard him. As to the unbeliever, continuing
such, no atonement can reach his case. The blood of the new
covenant he treads on in disdain. He lets go of the only
anchor of safety, he extinguishes the last glimmering ray of
hope. In one word, he rejects the Son of God, and, by this
act, fixes the broad seal of reprobation upon his own soul.
The law justly condemns him, but a rejected gospel will
more, clearly reveal the enmity of his heart against God,
and finally assign him a deeper and a darker place in the
world of hopeless ruin. These distinctions will enable us to
comprehend and explain those passages of scripture,
connected with the atonement, which are frequently
perverted, and pressed into the cause of universal
salvation. The following declarations are of this character:
That Christ "died for all," that he tasted "death for every
man," that he "taketh away the sin of the world," and that
"by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men
unto justification of life." These scriptures define the
atonement, and not its effect. They declare the extent of
the provision, and not the extent of salvation. The
atonement made by Christ, and its acceptance on the part of
the sinner are entirely distinct and separate acts. Some for
whom the Son of God expired, and to whom his salvation was
freely offered, will behold, and wonder, and perish. The
blood of Christ, though shed for sinners, cannot, without
its application to the heart, take away their guilt; and
this blood, it should be remembered, has not extinguished
the fires of hell. It remains an eternal truth, that the
impenitent must perish, that the unbeliever must be damned.
"He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the
wrath of God abideth on him." THE END.