The controversy concerning the extent or univer sality of the atonement has been, and still is, greatly
agitated, which imposes upon us a necessity of lLandling it, that nothing may be wanting to a clear elucidation of this all-important article of the Christian system.
Among the ancients, the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians contended that Christ died for all men; hence Prosper, in his letter to Augustine, concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy, says, “Those who embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that Christ died for all men universally, and that none are excluded from the atonement and redemption which the blood of Christ has effected.” And among those errors which they attribute to Augustine, they find this: “The Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world.” Faustus says, “They wander far from the path of piety, who assert that Christ did not die for all.” Hincmar, in his letter to Pope Nicholas, t recounts it as one of the errors of Gotteschaleus, that he preached that Christ did not shed his blood, precious to God the Father, for the redemption and salvation of all men, but for those only who will be saved, or for the elect. To the same purpose are the anathemas of the pretended Council of Arles, recorded in a letter to Lucidus, written by Faustus, the standard-bearer of the Semi-Pelagians; a Council which Sirmundus does not deny
Book i., Libero Arbitrio. IFlodoardus, book iii., chap. 14
116 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. TT” opposed himself to these heretical innovations; so did to have been Semi-Pelagian. Augustine, in his age, his disciples, Prosper and Fulgentius, and other preach- ers of the grace of Christ, who, travelling in their footsteps, boldly defended the truth. The same was } ) afterwards asserted by Remigius, bishop of Leyden.
The controversy was afterward= renewed among the Roman Catholics, some of whom taught, like the Semi- Pelagians, the doctrine of universal atonement; while others, embracing the views of Augustine and his gen- uine disciples, restricted the atonement to the elect. This controversy was principally between the Jesuits and Jansenists. The Jesuits, a genuine hraneh of [the Semi-Pelagian sectaries, warmly contend for a uni- versa atonement. The Jansenists with great firmness contended that the atonement was restricted to the elect. In this they followed Jansenius, the founder of their order, who has examined this subject very large- lv, and with great solidity of argument.t
The controversy passed from the Romanists to the Protestants. The Lutherans follow the Jesuits, and contend for a universal satisfaction.} The Arminians, l however, called Remonstrants from the remonstrance
a TTT I as. which they presented to the Synod of Dort, are its great champions. They have indirectly recalled Romanism, and have drawn the most of their errors [ from Molinus, Lessing, Suarezius, and other Jesuits. From such polluted fountains they have obtained their error concerning universal atonement, which is placed second among those that were rejected and con- I demned by the Synod of Dort, as may be seen in the second chapter of their “Rejection of Errors concerning the Death of Christ.” The doctrine on this subject for which the Armin- ians contended at the Synod of Dort, is expressed in this manner:—“The price of redemption which Christ I offered to his Father, was not only in itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human family, but even by the decree, will and grace of God the Father, was paid for all men and every manu, so that no one is, by an antecedent decree of God, particularly excluded from a participation of its fruits. Christ, by the merits of his death, has so far rceonciled God to the whole human family, that the Iather on account of his merits, without any impeachment of his truth or jus- tice, can enter aud wishes to enter into and confirm a new covenant of grace with sinful men exposed to damnation.” 1. ITence they maintain, that according to the counsel of God. Christ co died for all men that not only is his death, on account of its own iutrinsie value, sufficient for the redemption of all men, but that a. 118 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. agreeably to the will of God it was offered for that express purpose: that it was a death in the room of all i men and for their good, by the intervention of which, God ever after willed to deal graciously with all men; and hence, that the death of Christ was not a blessing promised in the covenant of grace, but the very foundation of it. 2. That by his own intention I and that of his Father, he has obtained for all men,: as well those who perish as those who are saved, a 8 restoration into a state of grace and salvation, so that no one, on account of original sin, is either exposed to condemnation or will be condemned: but all are freed from the guilt of that sin. 3. That Christ, according to the counsel of his Father, delivered himself up to death for all men, without any fixed purpose that any individual in particular should be saved; so that the necessity and utility of the atonement made by the death of Christ might be in every respect preserved, although the redemption obtained should not be actually applied to one individual of the human family. 4. That Christ by his atonement merited faith and salvation for none, with such certainty, that the atone- ment must he applied to them for salvation; hut merely acquired for God the Father a perfect will and power to treat with man upon a new footing, to enter into a covenant either of grace or of works with man, & and to prescribe whatever conditions he chose; the performance of which conditions depends entirely on the free will of man, so that it became possible that either all or none should fulfil them. 5. That the procurcment of salvation is more extensive than its application; as salvation was obtained for all but will be applied to very few. All these are clearly proved the Hague, and from the exposé of their sentimentsin to be Arminian tenets, from the Collation published at their remonstrance against the second article of the Synod of Dort.