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.
Those of our ministers, who defend the doctrine of universal grace, give great countenance to not a few of these Arminian tenets, nay, in a great measure adopt them as their own. That they may evince a philanthropy, a love of God towards the whole human family, i they maintain that Christ was sent into the world by the Father as a universal remedy, to procure salvation for all men under the condition of faith. They say that though the fruit and efficacy of Christ’s death will be enjoyed by a few only, on whom God, by a special decree, has determined to bestow them, yet Christ died with an intention to save all, provided they would believe. In this manner, they teach that the decree of the death of Christ preceded the decree of election, that in sending Christ into the world, no special respect was had to the elect any more than to the rep-
robate, and that Christ was appointed to be equally the Saviour of all men. They even distinctly assert that salvation was not jntended to be procured for any particular persons, but the possibility of salvation for 1 all. This, they tell us, was effected by the removal of obstacles which justice placed in the way of man’s sal- Ji vation, which was done by rendering satisfaction to justice aud thus opening a door of salvation, that God reconciled by the atonement might, in consistency with the claims of justice, think of entering into a new covenant with man and of bestowing upon him salvation. But as God foresaw that ou account of the wickedness of their hearts, none would believe in Christ, he, by another special decree, determined to bestow upon some faith, thus enabling them to accept of salvation and become partakers of it; while the rest of the human family would remain in unbelief, and on its account would be justly condemned. In this they differ from the Arminians, and embrace in so far the truth of the atonement. Such views as these which we have stated are clearly contained in their writings. Camerus says, “The death of Christ, under the condition of faith, belongs equally to all men.” Testar-dus: “The end of giving Christ for a propitiation in his blood was, that a new covenant might be entered
ITS EXTENT. - 121 Eo any impeachment of justice, their salvation might be i rendered possible, and an offer of it made to them in I the Gospel. In this sense, indeed, no one who believes the word of God can deny that Christ died for all men.” Amyraut: “The redemption purchased by Christ may be considered in two respects. 1. Abso- I lutely, in relation to those who actually embrace it. 2. Conditionally, as offered on such terms, that if any one will accept it, he shall become a partaker of it. In the former respect it is limited, in the latter universal. In like manner its destination is twofold: particular, as having the decree to bestow faith connected with it; universal, when it is considered separately from this decree.” This writer says expressly,t “Since the misery of the human family is equal and universal, and the desire which God has to free them from it by a Redeemer, proceeds from the mercy which he exercises towards us as his creatures fallen into destruction, in which we are all equal; the grace of I redemption, which he has procured for us and offers to us, should be equal and universal, provided we are equally disposed to its reception,” &e. Though all agree that Christ died for all men, yet they explain themselves differently in relation to the manner in which he died for all. As appears from the quotations given above, some say openly that
I 122 TURRETTIN Kb THE ATONEMENT. fi Christ died conditionally for all, and absolutely for the elect only. Others, perceiving that this view of I the subject leads to gross absurdities, are unwilling to express themselves in this manner, and rather choose to say that Christ did not die for men on condition that they would believe, hut that his death for all was absolute, whether they would believe or not. So that free access to salvation was opened for all who would by faith accept it; and, all obstacles being removed by the death of Christ, a way for a new covenant was I opened equally to all men; all were placed precisely i in the same =alvable state. Yet they all come to this a point, that Christ satisfied for all men severally and collectively, and obtained for them remission of sins and salvation: of which, if many are deprived, the cause is not to be sought in any insufficiency of Christ’s if death, nor any failure of will and intention on his part, but only in the unbelief of those who wickedly reject the salvation offered hy Christ. But the common opinion of the Reformed Church is, that Christ, from the mere good pleasure of his Father, was sct apart and given as a Redeemer and {i Head, not to all men, but to a definite number, who by the decree of God constitute his mystical body. J They maintain that for these alone, Christ, perfectly acquainted with the nature and extent of the work to which he was called, in order to accomplish the decree of their election and the counsel of his Fath was willing and determined to offer himself up a sac- rifice, and to the price of his death added an efficacious and special intention to substitute himself in their I room and acquire for them faith and salvation.
Whence we easily obtain a distinct statement of the question.
1. It does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ; whether as to its intrinsic 1 worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is I infinite, it would have been sufiicient for the redemppose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained tion of the entire human family, had it appeared good to God to extend it to the whole world. To this pur- I by many divines, “that Christ died sufficiently for dll, 3 but efficiently for the elect only.” This is perfectly true, if it be understood of the dignity of Christ’s I death, though the phrase is not accurate if it be referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The ques- tion which we discuss concerns the purpose of the “Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the I Son in dying. Did the Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all wen and every man, and did the Son deliver himself up to. death, with a design to substitute himself in the room of all men of all nations, to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did
Head he was to be? The pivot on which the controversy turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in { sending his Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying; not what is the value and efficacy of his death. lence the question does not, as some learned divines have affirmed, respect the revealed {f will of God, hat his sceret will, his decree, to which, as all must agree, the mission and death of Christ are to be referred.
2. We do uot inquire, respecting the fruits and efficacy of Christ’s death, whether all will actually be partakers of these? which was anciently held by Pnecius and Huberus. Our opponents extend these to believers only. But the question refers to the design of God in sending his Son into the world, and the purpose of Christ in his death. Were these such that Christ, by substituting himself in the room of each and every man, made satisfaction and obtained the pardon of sin and salvation for them all; or was his work designed for the elect only? Our opponents say the former; we say the latter.
3. We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even i to reprobates. Because it is in.consequence of the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to nations, that the gross idolatry of many heather tions has been abolished, that the daring impiety men is greatly restrained by the word of God,
I ITS EXTENT.. 125 multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the Church, unless Christ had died. The question is, whether the suretyship and satisfac- tion of Christ were, by the will of God and purpose of Christ, destined for every individual of Adam’s posterity, as our opponents teach; or for the elect only, as we maintain. We embrace this opinion for the following reasons: I. The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a limited number—rto his people, his sheep, his friends, las Church, his body; and nowhere extended to all men severally and eolleetively. Thus, Christ “is called Jesus, because he shall save Ais people from their sins.” He is called the Saviour of Ais body.t “The good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep,’f and for his friends.” Ile is said “to die— that he might gather together in one, the children of God that were scattered abroad.”] It is said that Christ “hath purchased the Church [or his flock] with his own blood.” If Christ died for every one of Adam’s posterity, why should the Scriptures so often
Matt. i. 21. t Eph. v. 23. 1 John x. 15.
126 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. restrict the object of his death to a few? How could I it, with propriety, be said absolutely that Christ is the Saviour of his people and of his body, if he is the i Saviour of others also? How could it in the same way be said that he laid down his life for his sheep, for the sons of God, and for the Church, if, according to the will and purpose of God, he died for others also? Would this bea greater proof of hislove and a firmer ground of consolation?
To thiz argument in general it iz objected: (1.) “That the Scripture, which in these passages appears to limit the atonement to a few, elsewhere extends it to all.” This objection is more specious than solid. The nni-: versality alluded to is not absolute, but liunited; one which does not refer to all the individuals of the human family, but to individuals of all nations; as will be shown at large hereafter. (2.) Another objection is, “that in the jexts quoted above, the satisfaction is not considered separately, but in connection with its application which is limited, though the satisfaction separately considered is universal.” To this we reply, that the words and phrases which the Holy Spirit uses in the texts cited above—such as, “the Saviour,’ “to lay down life for one,” “to give himself for one,” &e., properly denote satisfaction, the procuring of salvation. And although they imply the application of the thing obtained, yet this does not weaken the force of the argument; because the atonement and i
= Tl ITS EXTENT. 127 application are inseparably connected, and are of the same extent; all which will be proved in the proper place. (3.) Again, it is objected, that “Christ died absolutely for some and conditionally for others.” This, however, takes for granted what ought to be proved. It is altogether gratuitous to say that I Christ in Lis death had a twofold intention: one con- ditional, which extended to all; the other absolute, which was limited to a few. The Scripture nowhere countenances such a distinction; it always represents the application of the atonement as conditional, but the making of it never. The nature of the thing does not, indeed, admit of such a distinction; for, according to the hypothesis of the objectors, there was no consideration of the elect in the decree according to which Christ died; and they admit that he died with the same purpose with which the decree was passed; for the execution must be agreeable to the plan. Christ and the Father must have precisely the same object in view by his death. They say that the elect I were separated by a posterior decree; but if Christ was destined to dic for all before the elect were separated from the reprobate, he must have died for the elect and the reprobate in the same way. God decreed all things by one simple act, though we have to conceive of the deerce hy parts: who, then, can be- lieve that in one simple act, God had two intentions go diverse, not to say contrary, that in one manner
128 TURRETITIN ON THE ATONEMENT. Christ should die for all, and in another for some only? Nay, since Christ could not will to die absolutely for the elect, without involving, by the law of contraries, a will not to die for the reprobate, it is inconceivable how in one act he should will both to die for the reprobate, and not to die for them. (4.) Another objection is, that though these passages speak of the elect, yet they do not speak of them exelnsively of all others: as, when Paul says that Christ was delivered for him, he does not exclude others.” To this I answer, that though those texts upon which I rely do not explicitly exclude all others, yet they contain, in their description of those for whom Christ died, certain circumstances which clearly exclude others. Though the blessing is promized to the seed of Abraham, without saying to the seed of Abraham alone, yet it is sufficiently clear that the blessing was strictly confined to Abraham’s seed. The object of the passages quoted is to illustrate and magnify the love of Christ towards his sheep for whom he lays down his life; towards his Church and people for whom he delivered himself up to death. But how will this exalt the love of Christ towards them, if they have no prerogative, no claims in his death above the reprobate? Why should the immense love of Christ, who lays down his life and sheds his blood, be applied specially to the people of God? The example of Paul does not strengthen the objection; EU Ra,
ITS EXTENT.. 2g the apostle does not speak of this as a blessing peculiar to himself, but as one common to himself and the other elect or believers, to whom lie proposes himself as an example, that they might be able to say the same thing of themselves because they were in the same state. 1 But there are also particular objections to each of the passages we have quoted. I To the words of the vangelist Matthew, it is said, that “though Christ is called the Saviour of his people, in a peculiar sense, on account of salvation’s being actually bestowed upon them, yet there is no [ reason why he should not be the Saviour of others I also, on account of having obtained salvation for I them, though, in consequence of their unbelief, they will never be made partakers of it; aud that, in refer- ence to this, Panl says that God is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe.” It is gratuitous to say that Christ is the Saviour of some, for whom he has purchased salvation, but to whom it will never be applied. It is to take for granted what ought to be proved. The very expression, fo save, denotes the ( actual commmuication of salvation. Christ is Jesus, uot only heeause he is willing and able to save, and heeause he removes all obstacles out of the way of salvation, but becanze he does in reality save his peo-
ple, both by wmeritoriously acquiring salvation for them, and effectually applying it to them. That such was the intention of Gol in sending Christ, and the end of his mission, is clearly intimated by the imposition of the name Jesus by the angel. ‘Fhe passage quoted from Paul’s Epistle to Timothy does not show the contrary: for the word which is in that passage translated Saviour, in its most extensive sense denotes ii Preserver: and when it is said that he is the Saviour of men. the meaning is that he is the preserver of all men, that he upholds or preserves them in their present life. It is taken in a more strict and limited sense when it is applied to believers, which is denoted by the i word especially. In what other sense thau as the up- I holder of all men, can he be said to be the Saviour of men who finally perish? To say that Christ, by his death, intended to save them, will not solve the difficulty, for we do not call a man a saviour who intends to save another, but him who does it actually, Now Christ does actually uphold men in this life, for in him we live, and move, and have our being. In this the apostle alludes to a passage in the Psalns where God 13 said fo save man and beast Whence Chrysostom, (Ecumenius, Primasius, and Ambrose say “that Le is the Saviour of all in the present life, but of the faithful only as to eternal life.” And Thomas, “leis the preserver of the present and future life, because he
Acts xvii. 28. Peal. xxxvi. 7
saves all men with a bodily salvation, and thus he is called the Saviour of all men; he also saves the righteous with both a bodily and spiritual salvation, and is hence said to be the Saviour especially of them that believe.” I To the passage from John’s Gospel, it is objected, I “that those sheep, for whom Christ is said to have laid down his life, are not said to be the elect only.” The context proves incontrovertibly that it can apply to none but the elect. Christ 1s speaking concerning sheep who hear his voice and follow him, whom he has known and loves intensely, and whom he must bring into one fold under one shepherd, (v. 15, 16.) Those sheep for whom Christ lays down his life, shall be put in possession of eternal life, and no man shall be I able to pluck them out of the Father’s hand, which things can be affirmed of none but the elect, who are called sheep, both on account of their eternal destination to life, and their actual and effectual calling in time. Nor let it be objected, “that he is said to have laid down his life for his sheep, because they alone shall enjoy the fruits of his death, whilst others, on account of their unbelief, receive no benetit from his ‘ expiatory sacrifice. Thus, to die for some, either sig- [
132 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. swer to this objection, consider that to lay down life for some, can no more be referred to the enjoyment of the fruits of Christ’s death, than when it is said, that he gave himself a ransom for all. There is no solid reason why the former phrase should be referred both to the intention and to the effect, but the latter restricted to the intention of bestowing help. It cannot be I conceived that there is any difference between these two. He who dies for any one that he may profit him, intends that he for whom he dies shall be profited in reality; and he will in reality profit him if he can. Now, can any one assign a reason why Christ gains the object which he had in view, as to his sheep, but misses his aim as to the rest? Equally unsubstantial ix the objection, “that Christ could not lay down his life for his sheep as such; because, then they would have been his sheep before he died for them and purchased them for his own; hence, he died for them merely as sinners, which character belongs to them in common with others, and that hence he must have laid down his life in this way for others.” To this I reply, that though they were not actually his sheep, yet they were so by destination. They had been given to Christ to be purchased and redeemed by him as the good shepherd who must shed his blood for their re demption. By the decree of God they were given to him, before they were actually in his hands Nay,
John xvii. 24
the mission of Christ is founded in that donation. “And this is the Father’s will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose none, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Had there not been a fixed number contemplated by God when he appointed Christ to dic, then the effects of Christ’s death would have been uncertain, and the mystery of our redemption might have been rendered utterly vain and fruitless, by the perverseness of man in refusing. to accept it.
To Ephes. v. 25, and Tit. ii. 14, the objection is, that “although Christ is said to have given himself for Ads people, for his Church, yet it is not expressly said that he gave himself for none others.” We answer, that from the expressions used in these passages, and from the nature of the thing, it is clearly deducible that his offering of himself was so restricted. Because, the giving of himself, which the Apostle describes, arises from the love of Christ towards his Church as his spouse, and such a love necessarily excludes a similar love to others. In the preceding verse the Apostle gives this commandment, Husbands, love your wives.” Now, though he does not add, “let yourlove of women be confined to your wives,” yet all will acknowledge that such a restriction is necessarily implied in the Apostle’s command. Who would hear, without indigI John vi. 30.
134 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. nation, the adulterer plead thus in vindication of his crime: “Tt is indeed said, husbands, love your wives, but it is not said, love those alone!” The giving of him- elf which is here attributed to Christ, is one which has for its object the sanctification of his Church and its salvation: both the procuring and applying of salvation, which belong to the elect and to the elect only. Since he delivered himself up for none except for this end, how can he he said to have delivered himself for those who will not attain that end? It is objected to the passages Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28, and Ileh. ix. 28, that “many isnot opposed to all, but to one or a few, as is done Rom. v.19, and Daniel xii. “many” of which the apostle and the evangelist treat, 1, and that many is often put for all.” But the are described by such characters as eanmot be applied to all men of all nations. For, of the many here spoken of, it is said, “that he gave himself a ransom,” or actually substituted himself in their room, that ke shed his blood for the remission of their sins, and “that Il he offered himself to bear their sins,” i. c., that their sins might be through his atoning sacrifice really taken away. Though many is sometimes opposed to one or a few, vet it is not necessary, on that account, to understand it so in these passages, for it is often used when all cannot be included. Jerome, in his comment on Matthew xx., says, “The evangelist does not say that Christ gave himself for all, but for meny, i. e., fi all those who would believe,” who are none other than iI the elect in whom God works both to will and to do. A gloss interlined on Jerome’s book adds these words, “for many, not for all; but for those who were predestinated to life.” II. We further argue that the atonement was defiunite, from the fact that Christ was destined to die for none but those who were given him by the Father. All men universally were not given to Christ, but a limited number only. Since, in the council of the Father which regulated Christ’s death and defined its object, there was a designation, not only of Christ as Mediator, but alzo of those for whose redemption and salvaI tion he was to suffer; it is plain that he could die for those only who were in this sense given him. Here we may remark a twofold donation. One of Christ to men, another of men to Christ. Christ was given to men for the purpose of saving them, and men to Christ that through him they might be saved. The former is referred to in Isa. ix. 6, and xlix. 6, as well as in all those places in which he is said to be given and sent to ug; the latter is alluded to in the places I where mention is made of those given to Christ, as in John xvii. 2, 6, 12, and vi. 87. Seeing this twofold giving is reciprocal, each of them must be of the same extent; =o that Christ is given for none but those who are given to him, and all those are given to Christ for
136 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. Nm ee i whom le is given. Now, it is abundantly plain that some men only, and not all men, were given to Christ. Thisis asserted in many texts of Scripture, where those who are given to him are distinguished from other men. “Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. TI have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou hast given me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me. The Scripture designates those whom the Father gave him by such plirasesas these: the people whom he foreknew;t heirs and children of promise} the seed of Abraham, not carnal, but spiritual, both of the Jews and Gentiles; lis people, his body, the Church; vessels of mercy prI pared to glory;% chozen in Christ, predestinated to the adoption of sons and to conformity to his hmage; and the posterity of the second Adam, all of whom are to be quickened in Christ, in opposition to the posterity of the first Adam, in whom all die.tt From all which it appears, that Christ was not given for all of all nations, but for a limited number only.
To no purpose will our opponents reply, that the giving of Christ was conditional, not absolute; that the condition was that all who would by faith reecive John xvii. 2, 6. 1 Rom. xi. 2.
the offered salvation, should be made partakers of it; and since this was not to be the case with all, it is not surprising that they derive no advantage from it.” This is a begging of the question; it is without foundation in Scripture, which nowhere mentions such a conditional giving of Christ. Though faith is proposed as a means and condition necessary to the re- ception of Christ, and the enjoyment of the blessings offered in the Gospel, yetit does not follow that it was a condition to the giving of Christ, since faith itself is a gift of grace and one of the fruits of Christ’s being delivered up for sinners. Further, if the giving of I Christ rested upon any condition, the condition must depend cither upon God or upon man. The latter of these can be affirmed by none but a Pelagian; if the former be affirmed, then it comes to this, that Christ is said to be given to us as a Saviour by God on these terms, that he will bestow him on us on condition of his working faith in us; which faith, however, he will not give, though he alone is able to give it. How glaring an absurdity!
Our view is further confirmed by the connection of that twofold relation to us, which Christ sustains: the relation of a Surety, and that of a Ilead. Ile is our surety, that le may acquire calvation for us, by rendering to justice that satisfaction which it demands. He is our head, in order to apply this salvation to us, by working in us faith and repentance, through the
Turrettin on the Atonement
effectual operation of his Holy Spirit upon our hearts. Hence, as he is not given as a head to all men, but to his members only, or, which is the same thing, to the elect, who are actually to partake of salvation, he cannot be the surety or sponsor of any other than these. Of whomsoever he is the surety, he is also the head. The one cannot be extended farther than the other. This also appears from the connection between the death and resurrection of Christ, in which there is the same twofold relation. Since he died as surety, he must rise as head, as the reasons for his death and resurrection are the same; nor can any reason be given, why the ground of the one should be more extensive than that of the other. Hence it is, that the Apostle Paul speaks of these as being equal in eflicacy and extent: Christ died for our sing, and rose again for our justification.” “That he died for all, that they which live, should not live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.”t Hence it cannot be said that he died for any others than those for whom he rose, because no one will be a partaker of the fruits of Christ’s death, unless by his resurrection. But that he did not rise as a head to confer salvation upon all, is self-evident.
ul ITS EXTENT. 139 III. The same doctrine is established by the connection between the atonement and the intercession of Christ. As they are both parts of his priestly office, they must be of the same extent; so that for all for whom he made satisfaction, he should also intercede, and not make atonement for those who will never have a place in his intercession. The object of his propitiation and of his appearance in the presence of God must be one, since the Apostles Paul and John represent their connection as indissoluble. That he does not intercede for all, but only for those who are given him by the Father, Christ himself expressly declares: “I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world.”t When it is so much more I easy to pray for any one than to lay down life for them, i will any one say that Christ would die for those for whom he would not pray? Will they say that at the very moment before his death he would refuse his prayers on behalf of those for whom he is just about. I to shed his blood?
The objection which the Remonstrants or Arminians offer is frivolous: “that there is a twofold interces- sion of Christ: one universal, which is made for the whole world, of which intercession Isaiah speaks, liii. 12, and agreeably to which he is said to have prayed for his murderers;} another particular, which is made 1 Jobn, ii. 1, 2. Rom. viii. 34.
t John xvii. 9. { Luke xxiii. 3.
for believers only, which is spoken of, John ix. and Rom. viii.” The objection rests not on any foundation, either in Scripture or reason. As Christ is always heard and answered by the Father, if lie prays for all, all will be saved. The doctrine of universal intercession is not taught by the Prophet Isaiah, where he says, “he made intercession for the transgressors;”t for it is not said that he made intercession for all, but for many whose character is delineated by the prophet, in a preceding verse, as those who shall be justified by Christ. It is not said, Luke xxiii. 4, that he prayed for all those who crucified him, but for those who knew not what they did; and we are assured that these obtained pardon, no doubt the fruit of the prayer which Christ offered up on the cross to the Father.} Nor if Christ, through the impulse of humane affections of love, prayed for those who perished, is it to be considered that the intercessory prayers, which he offered as Mediator and in the discharge of his special office, are to be extended to others than the elect given him by the Father. To the elect Christ himself restricts his intercessory prayers.
This argument will not be weakened by ohjecting that it is the world of unbelievers only, who are excluded from the prayers of Christ, those who are John xi. 42. t Isa. xxiii. 12. } Acts ii. iii.
ITS EXTENT. 141 = ——————ssssenssguilty of rejecting the Gospel, and hate believers, (v. 14,) but not the world chosen by God, for the redemp- tion of which he has sent his Son. The object of Christ’s intercessory prayers is to obtain for believers perseverance in grace. The world, for which Christ says he does not pray, is opposed to those given him by his Father in the deerce of election; the world, then, of which he speaks must embrace all the reprobate who were not given to Christ, and this antecedently to their rejection of the offered salvation. They were passed by as sinners, whether their sins were waut of faith in the Gospel, or merely viola- tions of the law of nature. As the act of God by «which he chose to pass by a certain number of men and not appoint them to salvation, was done from eternity, there never existed a period when they, the world for whom Christ does not pray, were viewed in any other light, than as excluded from the benefits of his mediation and intercession. It forms no objection to this, that God is said “to have so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish;” because, as will be made to appear in the proper place, this does not extend to all men of all nations, hut to the elect of every nation. Though he prays for the apostles who were then believers, and asks for them perseverance,
142 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. yet it does not follow that he prays for them as believers only, and in consequence of their faith: for Christ (v.-19, 23) prays for all who should afterwards believe, “That they may be sanctified through the truth and made perfect in one.” Now, as this sanctification and attainment to perfection could not be effected without the instrumentality of faith, Christ must have prayed for faith to be given them. Hence, even that faith by which the Gospel is embraced, is given to believers in consequence of Christ’s intercessory prayers. Further, as Christ declares that he sanctifies himself for those who are the objects of that intercessory prayer, that they may be sanctified through the truth; and as none are thus sanctified but the elect, the conclusion is irresistible, that Christ’s intercessory prayers are extended to the elect only, those who shall be saved with an everlasting salvation..
IV. The inseparable connection between the gift of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit hears testimony the most conclusive to the definite atonement. As these two gifts, the most excellent which God has be- stowed on us, are always in Scripture joined together as cause and effect, they must be of equal extent and go together; so that the Son is not given John xvi. 7. Gal iv. 4, 6. Rom. viii. 9. 1 John iii. 24, to acquire salvation for any others. than those to whom the Spirit was given to apply the salvation procured. No reason can be assigned why the gift of the Son should be more extensive than the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is plain that the Holy Spirit is given to none but the elect. Hence, if there be any harmony between the work of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit, in the economy of salvation, Christ was given to die for the elect, and for them only. Peri- -nent to this purpose is the argument of the Apostle Paulin which, from the giving of Christ, he infers the communication of every blessing. “He that spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?’ The apostle reasons from the greater to the less. Surely he who gave his Son, which ineontrovertibly was the greater gift, will not refuse to give us faith and all other saving blessings, which are the less; and this the rather, because, as we shall presently prove, Christ, by delivering himself up, has merited for us, together with salvation, all those gifts. Whence the eounclusion is inevitable: either all those blessings shall be given to the reprobate, if Christ died for them; or if they are not given them, which is granted by all, then Christ did not die for them, i. eLe did not die for all. This is not answered by alleg-
eee 144 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ing that the apostle speaks of Christ’s being given in a special manner to the believers. For, as was said above, the supposition of a universal giving is gratuitous, and nowhere countenanced in Scripture; and since faith is a fruit of Christ’s death, it cannot be a condition antecedent to his death. Further, since, according to the order which is laid down by our learned opponents themselves, the decree concerning I Christ’s death was antecedent to the decree relative to bestowing faith; it is inconceivable how at one and the same time, and in the self-same simple aet, Christ could he delivered up for all, and for some only.
v. 1. Another argument is, the superlative love of Christ towards those for whom he died. He loved them with the most ardent affection. Greater love has no one, than that one should lay down his life “for his friend. In the same exalted strain does the Apostle Paul extol the love of Christ:—he speaks of it as truly wonderful and unheard of among men. “Scarecly for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would dare even to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”t l But this cannot be said of all men, and every man; for I presume that all men are agreed, that Christ
loved Peter more than Judas. It is inconceivable how Christ could love with ineffable ardour of affec- tion those whom, as an inexorable judge, he had already consigned, or had resolved by an irrevocable decree to consign, to mansions of endless woe and despair. It cannot with any colour of propriety be said that Christ and his apostle are treating of external acts of love. For, besides that external acts of love presuppose those which are internal; if Christ exercises to each and to all external acts of love so great that none can be greater, it follows that he has done, and still does so much for those who perish, that it is impossible for him to do more for the elect who shall be saved; than which nothing can be more absurd. Nor, if he loves some of the elect more than others, so far as regards the internal gifts of his Spirit, a diversity of which is necessary to the perfection of his mystical body, does it follow from this, that the disposition of his soul towards each of them as to the promotion of their good, is not supremely tender and affectionate. VI. The same doctrine is inferred from the nature of Christ’s suretyship. Tor It imports the substitution of Christ in our room, so that he died not only for our good, but in our place, as was said before, and proved against the disciples of Socinus. Ience, from the nature of his suretyship, he must assume to
ER RE EEE 146 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. himself all the debt of those whose persons he sustains; and liquidate it as perfectly as if they themselves had done it in their own persons. Can it be conceived that those for whom he died and satisfied in this manner, may yet be subjected to eternal vengeance, and bound to suffer again deserved punishment? This question must be answered in the affirmative by all those who assert that Christ died for many who shall not be saved by his death; and yet to say so is to impeach the justice and veracity of God. For if, in consequence of his suretyship, the debt has been transferred to Christ and by him discharged, every one must see that it has been taken away from the primary debtors, so that payment cannot be demanded from them. They must forever afterwards remain free, absolved from all obligation to punishment. Pertinent to this purpose are all those passages of Scripture which assert that our sins were so laid upon Christ, that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that by lis stripes we are healed, and those which declare that he was made a curse for us that we might be made the righteousness and blessing of God in him.t v. 11. Christ died for those only for whom he procured and to whom he applies salvation. As he procured and
ss —————— 0 ITS EXTENT. 147 applies salvation to the elect only, hence for them only he died. That Christ did not die for any but those for whom he procured salvation, and to whom he will apply it, appears, first, from the divinely appointed object of his death, which was to procure salvation for us; and, secondly, from the fact that the procuring cannot be separated from the application; what other end can there be in procuring a thing, but that it may be applied? A thing is procured in vain, which is never applied. Hence it follows, that if salvation is procured for all, it will and must be applied to all. If it be not applied to all, but to the elect only, then it was not procured for all, but for the elect only. In vain it is objected, “that Christ’s death was not intended so much to procure salvation, as to remove all the obstacles which justice threw in the way to prevent God from thinking of our salvation.” From this view of the subject, Christ rather procured for us the possibility of being saved than salvation itself, and placed it in the power of the Father to enter into a new covenant with man; an Arminian error long since condemned by the Synod of Dort as an injury to Christ’s cross and to the eflicacy of his mediation. How can Christ be said to have given himself a ransom, a price of redemption for us, to obtain for us eternal salvation, to redeem us from all iniquity, and other things of the same kind, which denote not the possibility, but actual procuring of salvation, if] after all, he only rendered it possible that we might be saved?
Another objection equally futile is, that “redemption was procured for all with a design that it should be applied to all, provided they would not reject it.” This cannot be asserted with respect to an innumerable number, to whom Christ has never been offered, and who do not know him even in name. If it be alleged that Christ proposed to himself an object so vain and fruitless as a thing which was never to happen, and which could not happen without his gift, which he determined not to give, what an indignity is offered to his wisdom! It represents Christ assaying, I wish to obtain salvation for all, to the end that it may be applied to them, will they but believe; however, I am resolved not to reveal this redemption to all, and to refuse to innumerable multitudes to whom it is revealed, that condition which is the only means by which it can be applied to them. Shall men make the infinitely wise and holy Jesus say, I desire that to come to pass, which I know neither will nor can take place; and I am even unwilling that it should, for I refuse to communicate the only means by which it can ever be brought to pass, and the granting of this means depends upon myself alone? What a shameful indignity does this offer to the wisdom of Immanuel! It would be an insult to the understanding of frail man. Nor will the matter be amended by saying that the failure of the application is not to be attributed to Christ, but to the wickedness and un- I belief of man. This is’ not less injurious to the honour of Christ, for it represents him cither as not foreseeing, or as not capable of preventing those im- pediments, which obstruct the application of the sal- vation he obtained, and thus make it fruitless. They indeed allege that it was not in vain, though it fails of success; because, however men treat the salvation offered them, Christ will not miss the prime object which he had in view in his death; that is, to provide pardon and salvation for every, man if he will only believe and repent—a thing which before was pre- vented by the inexorable rigour of divine justice. All this does not remove the absurdity. The object in procuring salvation could be none other than its application; and it cannot but be in vain, if it fails to accomplish this object. Christ needed to die for men, not to procure for them pardon and salvation under a condition which it is impossible for them to comply with, but to obtain for them actual pardon and re demption. This is confirmed from the manner in which Christ procured salvation; for if the procuring extended to all, it must be either absolute or conditional. The former will not be asserted, for then all men, universally, would be saved. The latter is equally inad- missible; for, 1st. What is procured conditionally,
150 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. not, properly speaking, procured at all, but only a mere possibility of its being procured, provided the condition is complied with. 2d. Christ has procured the condition itself either for all, or for some only. If he has acquired the condition for all, then all will assuredly be saved: for this condition could be obtained for them in no other way than absolutely; unless, indeed, they would say that there is a condition of a condition, which is absurd, as tending to stretch out into an endless chain of conditions; yet even then all these conditional conditions will be, on the present supposition, purchased by Christ. If the condition, by which the salvation is to be obtained, has been procured for some only, then the salvation has not been fully procured for all. The procuring has been partial and defective in the most essential point. In this view, vain and delusive has been the act by which salvation is said to have been provided; for the condition annexed to it is one with which the sinner is utterly unable to comply, which will never he performed, and which God not only foresaw would never be complied with, but also decreed not to give the power to fulfil, while he alone is able to give it. Finally, this subterfuge represents Christ as having had a double intention in his atonement: one conditional, in favour of all; the other absolute, in favour of the elect; a representation unsupported by revelation, and irreconcilable with the unity and simi plicity of the decree which appointed the death of Christ.
v. 111. Another argument is found in the fact that Christ did not purchase faith for all men. Christ suffered death for those only, for whom he merited sal- vation, and with salvation all the means necessary to put them in possession of it, especially faith and repent- ance, and the Holy Spirit, the author of both; with- out which salvation is unattainable. That he pur- chased faith, repentance, and the graces of the Holy Spirit, for all men universally, cannot be said; for then all men would necessarily be saved by his death. He procured them for the elect only; therefore for- the elect only he died. This argument is irresistible, un- less it is denied that Christ purchased those means of salvation. But that Christ purchased faith for man, is proved Dy abundant scriptural testimony. 1. He is said to he “the author and finisher of our faith.” If he is the author of our faith, he must be its purchaser, for he bestows nothing on us, which he has not pro- cured for us by his merits. 2. Christ is the meritori- ous cause of salvation. To him and hLis merits we are therefore indebted for every part of it, for everything which contributes to our salvation. But faith and spiritual life which he works and implants in us, are
Ileh. xii. 2. Acts v. 31.
“the chief pari of our salvation. 3. Christ is the cause and foundation of all spiritual blessings: “Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ” And of these faith is one of the greatest. Hence it is elsewhere said + “It is given you on the part of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” Tn what other sense can faith be said to be given us for Christ’s sake, but because he purchased it for us? 4. Christ promised to send the Spirit; who therefore is poured out or distributed by him. Hence the Spirit is spoken of as one of the fruits of Christ’s death.t All the gifts of the Spirit, especially faith, are therefore the fruits of Christ’s purchase. ere we are not to distinguish between the Spirit as sanctifying and comforting, and the Spirit as imparting spiritual illumination; as if Clrist had merited the former only, and not the latter. For as all the graces of the heart proceed from the same Spirit, he who acquired for us the Spirit, the author of these graces, must also have acquired with him all his gifts; and as faith is the principle and root of our sanctification, he who purchased the Spirit who sanctifies, must also have purchased “faith, which purifieth the heart.” I 5. Christ could not be a full and perfect Saviour, unless he had procured for us faith, without which it is impossible to be made partakers of salvation. This doctrine
ITS EXTENT. _ 153 has been uniformly taught in the Reformed Church. They maintained that Christ had not less procured for i us faith, than salvation, and that he is the cause of all the gifts which the Father bestows upon us. Hence the venerable divines of the Synod of Dort, in their exhibition of the doctrines of truth, say, “Christ, by his death, purchased for us faith and all the other in their “Rejection of Errors,”+ they condemn “those saving graces of the Spirit.” And to thc same purpose, who teach that Christ, by his satisfaction, did not merit salvation for any definite number, and also that faith by which his satisfaction is cfficaciously applied for salvation, but that he purchased no more than a power and entire willingness for the Father to enter into a new covenant with man, and to prescribe what- ever conditions he wight think fit; compliance with which conditions depended upon the free will of man; so that either all, or nonce might fulfil them. Such - teachers think too meanly of the death of Christ, are ignorant of its glorious fruits and blessings, and reeal from hell the Pelagian heresy.” It is a vain distinction which some make here re- speeting the deerce. They say that “we must distin- guish between the decree to deliver Christ up to death,” and his death itself, which took place in time; 1] that the decree to deliver Christ up to die for sinners
154 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. was antecedent to the election of a definite number, but his death procured the decree of special election.” Amyraut, speaking of Christ’s death in time, says, “Redemption ought lo be equal, that it may respect all, as the creatures of God equally sinful)” &e. Ie same with that of the Father for all men as his chilelsewhere says, that “the nature of the thing proves this, for seeing the affection of the Son must be the dren; so the death of Christ in time, must he conformed to the eternal decree of the father, as he would not make an atonement, unless according to the command of his Father. Therefore, since the decree of the Father respecting Christ’s death proceeded from equal fatherly affection towards all, before any were elected to faith; Christ, in his death, could have no other end and intention than to execute his counsel.” Lven in this view of the subject, Christ, in his death. must have considered some as elect, and others as reprobate; for since there can be no election without reprobation, it was impossible for Clwist to think of some as elected, without, at the same time, viewing others as passed by or reprobated. If, then. he willed to die for those whom he knew to have been elected, and that with a special affection for them as elected ones; he must, according 10 Amyraut, have been willing to die with the same
i 155 A, affection for those whom he knew to be reprobates, and that as reprobates; for Amyraut says, “he died to fulfil the decree of the Father, which proceeded from an equal love to all.” Hence, this monstrous absurdity will follow, that Christ, out of the most ardent affection for those who he knew would never be saved, died with an intention and desire to save them; while both he and his Father had decreed that they should not be saved! It will not avail to free our opponents from this absurdity, to say, that he did not die for the reprobate formally as reprobate, but that he died for those as men, who at another time had been passed by, and thus excluded from salva- tion. Desides, that it is inconceivable how such ab- straetions can belong to a unique and simple decree; it would follow that Cluist did not die for the elect i as such. Here we reason by the rule of contraries. If Christ did not die for the reprobate as reprobate, we infer the same with respect to the elect. It appears inexplicable how Christ, in his death, could have respect to a first and a fourth decree, respecting the elect—that is, should have died for them, con- sidered formally as elect, and materially as men; while as to the reprobate, he dealt abstractly, and viewed them only as men, and not as reprobate. For election and reprobation go hand in hand, and mutu- ally imply each other.
But certain learned men, being aware that their hypothesis, which makes faith no fruit of Christ’s death, but a gift of the Father, leads to great absurdities, offers indignity to Christ, and is injurious to salvation, have invented some other curious, intricate dis- Jf tinctions to escape these difficulties. Sometimes they teach, “that Christ did procure faith and repentance forall; conditionally, however.” Again they say, “that he did not procure them in the way of satisfaction or meritoriously; but in the way of final cause, that faith might be given to the elect to bring them to Christ.” But neither of these can be affirmed with truth. The I former supposition is inadmissible; for how could faith be procured for us conditionally, when it is itself a condition? Although faith is usually represented as a condition, required to interest us in Christ; yet it I is also held forth as one of the blessings of the new covenant, a blessing which Christ has purchased for us. Whence Christ is to be viewed as having procured for us not only salvation if we believe, but also faith that we may believe. The latter supposition is equally without foundation. In the schools of theologv, no one ever before heard of a procuring, in the way of final cause, and not in the way of meritorious cause or satisfaction. The procuring of salvation and all things connceted with it, is founded in the atonement and merits of the person who procures it. Then, if Christ did not procure for us faith in the way of meritorious cause, he did not merit faith. It canno
De said that Christ, in the way of final cause, procured faith for a limited number; for, on the hypothesis elected when God decreed that procurement, which of those who make this distinction, there were none Christ was to effect by his death. Again, either faith was procured in the way of final cause, for all those for whom salvation has been procured, or it was not. If the former be said, then, as they maintain that salvation has been procured for all, all will be saved. If the latter be said, then to what purpose has salvation been procured by the atonement for those who have not had procured for them, in the way of final cause, that faith, without which, they can never be I made poartakers of the salvation? Again, faith has been procured either for all in the way of final cause, or for the elect only. If for all, then all shall obtain I it, whicl: our opponents do not maintain. If for the elect only, then Christ, in and by his death, must have done more for the elect than for those who were not elected; while yet our opponents declare that, in pass ing the decree that Christ should die, which deli cree appointed and defined the objects of his death, I God respected all men equally. Thus, in whatever light we examine this hypothesis, contradictions and I absurdities grow ont of it. Faith has been equally procured for all, but all will not be made partakers of it; or if it has not been procured for all, how vain and delusive y that procuring of salvation, which is made only on the condition of faith, which he, who procured the salvation, knew it was morally impossible for the sinner to exercise, without special grace; and yet God, who alone can, has refused to give it! Hence, then, we arrive at this conclusion: cither faith is completely in the power of the natural man, as Pelagius held, or it must have been procured by Christ in the atonement, and in consequence thereof given us by the Father.
To free themselves from all these difficulties, our adversaries sometimes attempt to illustrate their view of the subject, by a comparison instituted between Christ, and a prince who pays the price of redemption for all his subjects, who are taken captive by the 1 enemy; though he does not effect by it the liberation of all; because some of them are unwilling to be set free. This comparison fails in one all-important circumstance. The prince is not able to give to those captives, who choose to remain in bondage, the will to avail themselves of the price of redemption, which has been paid. But Christ is able. Were there a prince, who could not only pay the ransom for his captive subjects, but could also give them the will to avail themselves of it; nay, further, suppose that the prince Il knew that they had not and could not have this will unless he bestowed it upon them, which he yet would not do; could any one say, that he really wished them to be liberated, and had paid the ransom with a serious
ITS EXTENT. - 159 intention to emancipate them? Again, if this com- parison be urged, its force may be easily retorted. The corporeal liberation of a captive cannot be effect- ed by the mere payment of a ransom; the chains and fetters which bind him in the prison must be broken asunder, otherwise the payment of the ransom will be ineffectual. In the same manner, in order to emancipate the soul from the spiritual bondage of sin, it is not enough that a ransom is paid to justice; the chains of cin and unbelief, which bind the prisoner so that he is both unable and unwilling to enjoy his liberty, must be burst asunder by the hand of the Almighty.
IX. Again, if Christ died for all, then he made expia- tion for all their sins. Ile therefore must have made atonement for the sins of unbelief and final impeni- tenee, which prevent man from applying to himself the redemption provided for him; and thus they will no longer stand in the way of such an application; for on the supposition of satisfaction having been made for them, they must he pardoned. To this it cannot rationally he objected, that the blessing will be applied, cured be complied with. It implies a contradiction to if the condition on which redemption has been protalk of the condition’s being complied with, when the unbelief and 1mpenitence are supposed to be final. 1t is as absurd to pretend that Christ died to atone for man’s unbelief, provided he would not be unbelieving,
J —— but believe; as to say I have found out an infallible remedy for the healing of a blind or leprous man which I shall be applied on this condition, that Le will not be blind nor leprous. Further, a failure in fulfilling the condition cannot prevent the application of redemption to unbelievers; for it is supposed that Christ by Lis death has made satisfaction for unbelief, and thus has atoned for this very failure. But, since every one must see that this cannot be affirmed of those who will not be saved, or of the reprobate; the conclusion 18 irresistible, that Christ did not die for them.
X. The last argument on this subject is, the absurdities that flow from the doctrine of universal atonement If Christ died for all men universally, it will follow: — 1. That he died, on condition they would believe, for multitudes innumerable, to whom his death has never been made known; and hence it was impossible that they could believe. 2. That Le died for those whom l he knew to be children of perdition, whom God had passed by, and who would never, to all eternity, enjoy I any of the fruits of his death; and so exercised ineffaI ble love towards those whom both he and the Father ill cause to suffer eternally under the effects of their wrath. 3. That he died for those, who previously to his death were actually condemned without all hope of reprieve, and were in hell suffering his avenging wrath, and that as their surety he suffered punish SS Sn in the place of those who were suffering punishment for themselves, and must suffer it without end. 4. That Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of those who not only never will be, but never can be saved or redeemed. Or otherwise lie must be an imperfect Sa- viour, having obtained a salvation which he never ap- plies; for he indeed cannot be properly called a Saviour of any but those whom he makes to be parta- kers of salvation, and who arc actually saved. I proceed to answer objections. Christ is nowhere in Scripture said to have died for all, unless some limtation is added; from which it may be inferred that these Scriptures do not teach that he suffered for all men of all nations, but that the object of his death is restricted according to circumstances. Sometimes it is limited to the multitude of the elect, which has a universality peculiar toitself. When it is said (2 Corv. 13) “that Christ died for all,” it is not to be understood of all those who are dead” in sin; for the object of the Apostle, in this chapter, is not to demonstrate the general depravity of men, but to show how great the obligations arc which bind believers to the performance of duty, both on account of their justification I through the imputation of the merits of Christ’s death, which delivers them as {ully as if they had made satis- faction in their own perzons; and on account of their sanctification through the crucifixion of the old man with his affections and lusts, by the efficacy of the cross of Christ. Those are understood, who Zhve not unto themselves, but unto Christ; for whom Christ not only died, but also rose again; and whom the love of Christ constraineth. These phrases limit the al of the Apostle. As if the Apostle had said, Christ died for all who are described by these characteristics. They agree to none but the elect, to whom alone it belongs to die in Christ, and with him, as the Apostle elsewhere declares. When the Apostle, in the 19th verse of this chapter, says, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them,” he must be understood as treating of the world of those actually reconciled, “to whom he does not impute their sins.” It is plain that this agrees to none but to the elect. To all others he does [ff impute the sins which they commit. The Psalmist says,t they are blessed to whom the Lord does not impute sin. Surely this cannot be affirmed of those who will never be saved. In the sense in which the Psalmist speaks, and in which the Apostle speaks in Rom. vi., we are to understand the words of the Apostle, Rom. v. 18, 19: “By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life; for as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many
ITS EXTENT. 163 E be made righteous.” The all men who receive “justification of life,” are those, “who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness;” and they can be nonc other than those who are actually justified. Who are they that actually obtain justification? They are believers, and believers alone; the elect, and the elect alone, who belong to the body of Christ, which is composed of all its members, and who are the af of which the apostle speaks. As Adam is opposed to Christ, Head to Head; as sin and death have passed upon all who descend from Adam; in like manner, all who pertain to Christ the second Adam obtain justi- fication and life. The apostle elsewhere expresses this By the phrases dying, and being made alive. “Asin Adam all die” that is, as all who die, die in Adam, and on account of his sin; “so in Christ shall - all be made alive;” that is, all who will be “made alive” in grace and glory, will be made alive in Christ and on his account. All those for whom Christ is said? to have “fasted death,” are sons, who are either brought or to he brought to glory, the captain of whose salvation is Christ, whom Christ calls brethren, and whom God has given him. Will any one say that all these things can be affirmed of the reprobate? When the objector is prepared to say so, then, and not till then, let him quote this text, in proof of universal atonement.
1. Cor. xv. 22. t eb. ii. 9. Rom. x. 11.
164 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. SR ——— Sometimes the sacred writers use the word afl to exclude all distinctions of nation, age, sex, condition, character, and other particulars, by which men are J distinguished from one another; and not with a view to comprehend every individual. Thus Paul says, “For the Scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” To the same effect he speaks elsewhere. “In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”+ As if the apostle should say, no difference of nation or condition, either promotes or hinders salvation; but Christ is all, i. e., bestows all things necessary for salvation upon all who believe, without any regard to nation or condition. This is explained by John in the Apocalypse: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nations That is, from all the tribes ofIsrael, and from men of all nations, whether civilized or barbarous, hast thou redeemed us.
The passage so often in the mouths of our opponents “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be
g RS ——————— testified in due time,” teaches the doctrine which is illustrated in the foregoing section, and none other: 1. The a here spoken of, are those in whose place Christ substituted himself to bear their punishment and to pay the price of their redemption. This is the I import of the word evridvrpor, as all the orthodox have maintained against Socinus and his disciples. I This he cannot be said to have done for all; for then I none could be condemned to suffer for his own sins. 2. Paul speaks of all those for whom Christ is Mediator by intercession as well as by satisfaction, for we have shown above that these two functions of his priestly office are inseparable. But the Arminians themselves admit that Christ does not intercede for all men. 3. The objects of the apostle’s discourse are such as God “wills to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Experience teaches us that he does not i so will with respect to all men universally. This we have proved at large under a former head, where the subject of God’s desire to save all men is minutely examined. [We there remarked, that if God desires to save men who are not saved, his power must be lim- ited, and who will dare say so? Besides, can we con- ceive that a being desires to accomplish an object and is unable to effect it, without also coneciving that being to be in some measure unhappy? At least we must suppose he would have been more happy had he gained hig object; and who will dare to attribute imperfeeT% \
e 166 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. tion of happiness to God? Doubtless he who asserts that God earnestly desires the salvation of those whom he cannot save, must assert, that he is deficient both I in power and happiness. Further, if there are men whom God desires to save and cannot, his not being able to effect their salvation must proceed from one of two causes: cither the impossibility of making an atonement for their sins; or the obstinacy of their depravity is so great that he cannot vanquishit. The former of these cannot be said by our adversaries, for they assert that Christ made atonement for the sins of a! all men without any exception. The latter ground is untenable. From the great transgressors who have been made illustrious trophies of divine grace, we may and do safely conclude that the greatest and most obdurate sinners are equally, with the least guilty, in the power of grace. If sin be in some instances so potent-as to be beyond the power of God to arrestand Jf destroy it; who can say but that sin may so fortify itself in the dominions of God as to brave the utmost power of Jehoval’s arm, and extend its ravages even to the throne of God? Hence the word afl, used by the apostle in Lis letter to Timothy, must be understood in a restrictedsense. That it is in some measure restricted must be admitted; for otherwise it would embrace fallen angels. How do we know that it does not extend to them? The Scripture assures us that he took not on Lim the nature of angels, and that there h Au EE i EE Ee ee FE is no redemption for them. In the same way we learn “from other portions of Scripture, which we have before adduced, that Christ did not die for all the posterity of Adam; without any exception.] The apostle is here to be understood as speaking of individuals of all nations, and not of all the individuals of every nation. Beza translates Tove mavrag, by a Latin word which signifies all kinds, some of all nations, states, and conditions. That this is the true semse of the phrase Calvin has proved by very solid reasoning. “The apostle simply means that no nation or order of men is excluded from the salvation, which God offers to all without exception who hear the Gospel.” “Theuniver-sality here mentioned must be referred to kinds of men, and not to persons; as if he had said, not to Jews only, but Gentiles also; not peasants only, but princes too, are redeemed by Christ.” The world, for which Christ is said by the Evangelist John to have died, and to which he was sent, cannot be extended without limitation to the whole human family; for innumerable multitudes of the world which it composes, perish; but it denotes, either the universality of the elect, or some of all people indiscriminately, Jews and Gentiles. The evani gelist alludes to the promise made to Abraham, that “in his seed [i e., Christ] all families of the earth
John iii. 16, 17, and 42, and 33
168 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. TER should be blessed.” In this promise given to the I ancient patriarels, there are blessings held out to all i nations, who have Abraham for their father.t But this blessing belongs, not to all men universally, who ( are in the world, but to all the promised seed, with- l out distinction of nation; as appears both from this, that all are not justified and saved by faith, which is i the condition of the promise, as its blessing 1s ex- plained by Pauli} and that the same apostle limits it i to those who are the seed of Abraham through feith. Again, the apostle quotes this passage from Genesis, “In Isaac shall th seed be called,”l and thus limits the promise to a definite number. Hence the world for whom Christ gave his flesh to death% is none other than the world to which he is said (verse 33) to down from heaven, and giveth life to the world,” give life. “The bread of God is he which cometh which cannot extend to the whole human family. For the giving of life imports its application and communication; which belong to the elect only. Itis in this sense that Christ says he gives life to his sheep.# It is absurd to say that life is given to one when it is only obtained for him or offered to him, but never actually imparted. When Christ is said to be the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of
the world,” the elect world is meant. The word dlpew, which is here translated “taketh away,” signi- I fies to remove entirely. How can Christ be said to remove entirely the sins of the reprobate, which re- main against them for condemnation? No other world can be meant in these passages but the world I of the elect, made up out of Jews and Gentiles, without regard to nation or condition; the world of those whose sins Christ is said to have borne in his own body on the tree, that they, being dead to sin, might live unto. righteousness,t and who are said to be blessed, on
When it is said that “Christ is a propitiation for f account of the taking away of their sins. our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world,” it is not meant to extend the propitia- I tion to all collectively and severally, but to those only who ean comfort themselves by the intercession of Christ, and the pardon which they have obtained through him. They are the elect only. Christ is a propitiation for those alone, whose cause he pleads as.intercessor with the Father; for these are joined to- gether by the apostle as equal and inseparable. Our I learned opponents confess, in their explanation of John xvii. 9, that Christ is not an advocate for all. Besides, the Father must be actually propitiated and reconciled to all those for whom Christ made propi- John i. 29. t 1 Pet. ii. 24. 1 Psal. xxxii. 1.
170 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. Ee tiation, unless we maintain that Christ missed his aim and shed his blood in vain, contrary to the apostle’s assertion that no one for whom Christ died can be condemned, which plainly cannot be said of those who are shut out from the covenant and have the wrath of God abiding upon them. Finally, the scope of the apostle, which is, to comfort believers against the remains of sin, proves that he does not intend every one of the posterity of Adam. For what comfort can a believer take from that grace which is com- mon to the elect and the reprobate? What comfort if he knows that Christ in his death has done nothing more for him than for unbelievers? Therefore, the phrase of John has respect not to all men of all nations, but to the believing inhabitants of the whole world; or, as Calvin says, the sons of God dispersed through the whole world.” Lest any ome should think that the blessing of Christ’s atonement was confined to the apostles alone, or to those be- (If lievers to whom this Epistle was directed; John says that it was much more extensive, embracing men of all nations, and belonging to believers redeemed out of every tribe, tongue, kindred, and people of the whole world. It is of little moment whether by the phrase our sins, are understood those of the apostles, or those of believing Jews of the dispersion, then
em ITS EXTENT. 171 living, (to whom, without doubt, this Epistle was directed, as well as the Epistles of Peter and James, all which are called catholic, because not inscribed to any particular city or person,) as distinguished from i those who either had believed before Christ appeared in the flesh, or who would afterwards believe to the end of the world. The question still comes to I the same point. 1t is sufficient that the world here mentioned cannot embrace universally all men; as John and those to whom he writes were distinguished from it; while yet they are included in that universal ity, which embraces the whole of the human race. This was the opinion of Calvin. “Not for our sins only iz added by way of amplification, that believers might be firinly persuaded that the propitiation ex- tended to all who would embrace Christ by faith;” and again, “The object of John was none other than to make known that the blessing of which he dis- courses is common to the whole Church; therefore, under a/l he does not comprehend the reprobate, but 1 designates them who would afterwards believe from among those who were scattered over every clime. Then truly with the greatest propriety the grace of Christ is illustrated, when he is preached as the only salvation of the world.” [ Though Christ came “to save that which was lost”
mii 0 252 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT a and saves none others, yet it is not necessary that he should save all those who are lost sinners So far from this, Christ himself clearly testifies, that he came to call not those lost sinners who are both utterly ignorant of their lost state and swollen with an exalted opinion of their own righteousness, but those only who labour and are heavy laden with the burden of {heir sin Whence he says, he came to save that which was lost, in order to mark the character and condition of those who will be saved, but not all that i which was lost. Tle designates the quality, not the I number, of those whom he would save
It is one thing to perizh in reality and finally, another to receive from a brother an occasion hy which he might, and, if left to himself, would perish When the Apostle Paul speaks concerning the perishing of a brother for whom Christ died, he does not intend actual perdition, as if one for whom Christ died might perizh in reality, for none can snatch Christ’s sheep out of his hand;i mor can any one of those perish whom the Father has given him to be redeemed; because they “are kept by the power of God through faith.” Especially since it is a brother who is here spoken of; he may be weak in faith, yet God is able to make him stand. The apostle inI Matt. xi. 28. + Rom. xiv. 13, and 1 Cor. viii 10, 11 I 1 John x. 28. John xvii. 12. 1 Pet. i 5 Rom. xiv. 1, 4.
tends to develop thc mischievous consequences of an improper and preposterous usc of liberty in things 1 which are in themselves indifferent, and show how it wounds and offends the conscience of a weak brother, and thys exposes him, as far as we can expose him, to the danger of perishing. The Scriptures often use words which naturally signify effects and actions, when nothing more is intended than to point out those occasions or motives which may lcad to the effects and actions mentioned. Thus he is said to be guilty, as far as in his power, of adultery, who only looks upon the wife of another man to lust after her. He is said to “make God a liar, who believes not the record which God has given of his Son.”t That is, he does it, so far as in him lies. No one will say that he does so in reality. In this way a weak brother is said to perish by our knowledge, when we do nothing to preserve him; as it is expressed Rom. xiv. 15: “Destroy him not by thy meat.” When heretical, apostate teachers are said “to deny the Lord that bought them,”{ wc are not to under- stand the buying to mean a literal atonement redecem- I ing the sinner from the wrath and curse of God, and from eternal death. No one is so redeemed, but those who werc given by the Father to Christ to be
Christ and saved with an everlasting salvation, as l the members of his body and his peculiar treasure It is deliverance from error and idolatry of which Peter Lere speaks; a deliverance effected by an outward exhibition of the Gospel, and a setting apart to the ministry, for which these false teachers were in a certain respect bought by Christ as Lord of the Church. Christ had acquired a peculiar title to them, as his own, by calling them into his Church, the house which he owns, as masters formerly bought servants for the discharge of domestic duties That this is the intention of Peter is collected from the following considerations: —1. He uses the word deomoryg, which signifies a master or an owner rather than a Saviour, to whom redemption properly so called belongs. 2. The word ayopddev which the apostle here employs is generally used to express that kind of buying which is practised in markets, and often denotes simple deliverance. 3. The kind of buying here contemplated, is that through which those bought are said “to have escaped the corruptions that are in the world, through the knowledge of God our Saviour,” by which “they have known the way of righteousness.” All these belong to deliverance from pagan errors and idolatries, and to a calling to the knowl edge of the truth, from which, through apostacy and the introduction of most pernicious heresies, they make defection. Hence they are said to deny their Master
who bought them and called them to the work of the ministry. [4. The denying of the Lord here mentioned, is a sin which is spoken of as peculiarly aggrava- ted; and that which constitutes the peculiar aggravation ig, that they deny their Master who bought them. But if Peter intends by the purchase here mentioned, that atonement which Christ in his death made for sin, then there was nothing in the conduct of these teachers peculiarly wicked; the same thing might be affirmed of every man, upon the hypothesis of our opponents; for they maintain that he bought every man. On the supposition, however, that the buying here intended is the calling of these false teachers out of the darkness of heathen superstitions, to a knowledge of the glori- ous Gospel of God, and making them teachers of that Gospel; then their denial of a Master who had done such great things for them, was a crime aggravated by the foulest ingratitude.—Trans.] Sanctification by the blood of the covenant may be understood in a twofold sense. One internal, spiritual and real, which belongs to those who are actually redeemed and regenerated by the blood of Christ; another external and apparent only, which consists in a profession of the truth. The former necessarily presupposes that Christ died for those who are thus sanctified. The latter kind of sanctification does not presuppose this at all. Many hypocrites obtain that external sanctification, by an external calling to membership in the Church, and the enjoyment of its privileges, especially baptism and the Lord’s Supper; to whom, notwithstanding, Christ with his saving benefits does not belong; because they are destitute of justifying faith. When Paul speaks of those who profane the blood of the covenant wherewith they had Deen sanctified we cannot suppose (upon the hypothesis of the Reformed churches) that he intends the internal and real sanctification of which we have spoken. We must understand him to mean external sanetifieation, such as belongs to those who profess their adherence to the Church and enjoy its ordinances, especially baptism, in which they are sanctified or set apart from the world by the sprinkling.of water which represents I the blood of the covenant, and who remnounee it by denying Christand apostatizing from his Gospel. In this manner, those who eat and drink unworthily, at the sacrament of the Supper, are said to he guilty of the body and blood of Christ.t Besides, the apostle speaks hypothetically, not absolutely. He points out the connection between an anteecdent and consequent. He shows what they who thus transgress are to expect. He asserts nothing more respecting those who are really redeemed and true believers, than what 3 is elsewhere asserted respecting himself and angels from heaven. “Though we or an angel from Heb. x. 29. 1 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. 1 Gal. i. 8.
ete Fe ee A ITS EXTENT. 1 q i i A I heaven preach any other doctrine, let him be accursed.” But no one will infer from this, that the apostle or an angel from heaven will be accursed.
What every one is bound to believe absolutely and simply, dircetly and immediately, without anything previously supposed, we grant is true. But the case is different in relation to those things which one is bound to believe mediately, and in consequence of some acts supposed to be previously done. It is false, however, thatall men are bound to believe that Christ died for them simply and absolutely. In the first place, those to whom the Gospel has never been preach- ed, to whom Christ has never been made known, are not surely bound to believe that Christ died for them. This can be affirmed of those only who are called in the Gospel. “IHow can they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?” Secondly, even all those who hear the Gospel are not bound to believe dircetly and immediately, that Christ died for them, but mediately. The acts of faith and repentance arc presupposed; they must precede a belief that Christ died for one’s self; for Christ’s death belongs to those only who believe and repent. So far is it from being true that unbelievers are bound to believe that Christ died for them, that he who persuades them so to believe mis-
EE =——————— 178 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. erably mocks them; since the wrath of God abides on them, and they are bound to believe themselves condemned already. Nor, if they are bound to believe that Christ has died for them, provided they repent and fly to him, does it follow that this is simply and absolutely true whether they believe or not. Hence those who are bound to believe that Christ died for them, arc not simply and absolutely all men; it is all those only who are weary and heavy laden with their sins;t who thirst and sensibly feel their need of drink; or who are penitent and feel their misery.
Tt will not avail here to object, that “faith in Christ is demanded of all who hear the Gospel, and that not an undefined faith, but a faith true and justifying, which it cannot be unless it terminates on Christ as dying for them.” For, although faith in Christ is so demanded, and that a true and justifying faith, yet we may not infer that it is required that all its acts are immediately and at the same time to be exercised; and especially its ultimate and special act, that of believing in Christ as having died for me. For, although this is included in the acts of justifying faith, yet it is not its first act which is immediately and in the first instance demanded of the person called in the Gospel; it is its last, and presupposes others preceding it. That this remark may be well understood,
I shall proceed to distinguish various acts of faith. First, one act of faith is direct, which has for its object the offer of the Gospel. By this act I fly to Christ and embrace his promises. Another act is reflex, and has for its object the direct act of faith. By this act I ises of the Gospel belong to me. Again, the direct act discover that I have indeed believed, and that the promof faith is twofold. One of its operations consists in the assent which it gives to the word of God and the promises of the Gospel, as true in relation to the giving of salvation to all who repent and by a living faith fly to Christ and embrace him. Another operation of saving faith is its taking refuge and trusting in Christ, acknowledging him as the only sufficient Saviour. It is by this we fly to him, rest in him, and from him obtain pardon of our sins and salvation. Now, that faith which is commanded in the Gospel is commanded as to the first and second acts which are direct, before it is commanded as to the third act which is the reflex, anu which necessarily supposes the two former; as it cannot exist unless preceded by them. Hence we are enabled clearly to detect the fallacy of the above objection. When the objection speaks of the faith commanded, it refers to that act by which the I sinner lays hold of Christ; but when it speaks of the thing believed, then it refers to the last, by which we
180 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT revealed in the Gospel as having died for me in particular; but only as having died in general for those who I believe and repent. Hence I reason from that faith and repentance which I find actually to exist in my y heart, that Christ has, indeed, died for me in particular. I know that he died for all who fly to him; I “find that I have fled to him; hence I can and should infer that he died for me. That the faith commanded in the Gospel is not a direct and immediate belief that Christ died for me, appears from this consideration: that when it is enjoined either by Christ or his apostles, no mention is made of its being applied to this or that man, in particular. It is set forth only in a general relation to duty, or to blessings promised to those who believe; as in Matt. xvi. 16. Peter, in his celebrated declaration of faith, professes no more than this: that he believes Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jobn vi. 69: We believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Paul demands no more of those who believe unto salvation, thau “to confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and to believe with the heart that God raised him from the dead.” Thus, when the saints are commanded to believe in the Son of God, they are bound indeed to believe that Christ is the true Messiah, and to fly to him as the only author of salvation,
to those who, through faith and repentance, betake I themselves to him; and these acts must take place before they are bound to believe that Christ died for them.
Hence it appears, that the command to believe in Christ, embraces many things before we come to the last consolatory act, by which we believe that he died for us. First, we are to believe what the Scripture reveals to us, relative to our miserable condition by nature and our utter inability to effect our own salvation. Whence arises a salutary despair of our own exertions, and a knowledge of the necessity of a remedy. Secondly, those who thus despair of themselves, are commanded to believe that Christ, the Son of God, is the alone all-sufficient Saviour, given by God to menthat in him alone, they can obtain perfect salvation and remission of sin, who sincerely fly to him and repent with genuine repentance. Thirdly, those who are thus contrite and penitent and despairing in themselves, are commanded to fly to Christ as the roek of galvation; to embrace his merit as all-sufficient; to fall upon and sweetly rest upon it; and through it aloneto expect remission of sin, righteousness and salvation. Iourthly and finally, those who perceive that they do repent, fly to Christ, and repose in him all their hopes of salvation, are bound to believe that Christ died for them, and that on account of his death their sins are dye. From all which, it is abun- 182 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. Ar ———————————————— ‘dantly plain, that faith in Christ presupposes an afflicting sense of misery and a desire of deliverance; and that the command to believe does not respect all indiscriminately, but only all who feel their misery and desire deliverance from it, who hunger and thirst, who labour and are heavy laden, who are broken in spirit and contrite in heart. Further, it appears that this Gospel command does not immediately and in the first instance, demand of us that act of faith, by which we believe that Christ died for us, but that by which we fly to Christ, embrace him, and rest on him, which is nothing else than the one by which the penitent sinner, dejected under a sense of his misery and awakened hy the call of the Gospel, renouncing every other hope, flies to Christ as the rock of salvation, and with his whole heart desires and seeks the grace offered in the Gospel. To express it in a word, the faith which the Gospel demands of those who hear it is, the flying of the sinner for refugeto God as the fount ain of grace, and to Christ as the ark of safety which is opened in the Gospel. 1f 1 am conscious to myself that I have dene this, which is the formal act of faith. then I can and ought to exercise the other act by which I believe, that for me, who repent and fly to him, Christ hath died. This is sometimes called the consequent ac of faith, because it follows the direct act of faith,
i which I believe in Christ and fly to him as the only and perfect Saviour. It is also called the consolatory act, because it pours into the soul of the believer unspeakable joy and consolation. Since, therefore, no one can have this special reflex act of faith, unless the other acts together with repentance are presupposed as going before it; we infer, that all are not bound to believe that Christ died for them, but only believers and penitents, or all who, through the knowledge of sin and a sense of the divine wrath, are contrite in heart, and fly to him, and from him seek pardon of sin, and rely on his merits alone for salvation.
In vain will any one reply, (1.) “That the command to believe in Christ calls for a faith embracing all its aets, and among them the last, by which we believe that Christ died for us, and that this is required of all who hear the command to believe.” The wature and dependence of these acts upon one another is such, that the last cannot exist without boih the former; the third cannot exist without the second, nor the second without the first. When, therefore, the command to believe is announced, the first act is demanded of the sinner; not that he may halt there, Lut that, having performed it, he may go on to the second. Butin eaze he has not performed the first, he is by no means re-
Redeemer of men; nor should a man believe that Christ redecms him, while yet he does not believe that Christ is a Redeemer at all. But, when a man finds in himself the preceding acts, which are the foundation of the last, then, and not till then, let him go on to exercise that last one also.
Equally vain is the objection, (2.) “That as many as are commanded to believe in Christ, are commanded to have justifying faith, as no other can be saving; but justifying faith necessarily imports that we believe not only that Christ died in common for men, but for us in particular; that otherwise, this faith would not differ from the mere historical faith of reprobates; nay, it would not differ from the faith of devils, who can believe the same thing.” To this 1 reply, that the justifying faith which is commanded in the Gospel, does indeed embrace the various acts of which we have spoken, but every one in its own order. First, the direct and formal act, which consists in the last judgment of the intellect, (or that by which the will is immediately impelled to volition) concerning Christ, that he is the sole and perfect Redeemer of all those who believe, repent, and seriously fly to him. This is called justifying faith. In it the light let into the understanding powerfully impels the will, and the whole soul flies for refuge to Christ and finds rest. Secondly, the reflex and consolatory act, which follows of itself, when the first is per-
formed. From the time that I fecl myself powerfully persuaded by the Gospel call and promises, seriously to fly to Christ, and expect life and righteousness from him alone, from that moment I can and should infer, that Christ has died for me; because, from the Gospel I learn, that he has died for all who believe and repent. Hence the answer is easy to the argument: Whosoever is bound to have justifying faith, is bound to believe that Christ died for him. I deny that this is true of the first act of faith. Of the sec ond reflex act, I admit it to be true. Presuppose the first, then we are bound to believe that Christ died for us; exclude it, then I deny that any man is so bound. Nor is, therefore, the faith of believers like that of reprobates and devils. For, although reprobates may believe theoretically that Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of men, yet they are never so truly persuaded by a fiducial assent to the word of God, that they fly to him and rest upon him for salvation. If they were truly persuaded that Christ is the only and perfect Saviour of all who believe and repent, and that out of him there is no salvation, it would be impossible for them not to fly to him and embrace him for salvation with their whole heart. This necessity arises from the will’s always obeying the last dictate of the understanding, and from all creatures seeking their own happiness. Hence also it appears, that the faith of devils has nothing in
186 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. common with that of the elect. For the devils know eee err that Christ is offered to men alone, and that they have no interest in him; and it is impossible for them to place any fiducial reliance upon him.
Again, it is objected, (3.) That no one can place his trust and reliance upon Christ, unless he knows that Christ has died for him and is his Saviour. For man always is anxious about his salvation, until he knows the intention of God and the will of Christ, and that by the purpose of God the death of Christ was destined for him.” To this I reply, that there are two acts or parts in the fiducial reliance of the Christian. The one consists in his receiving and taking refuge in Christ; the other, in the rest and consolation which arise from a sense of having fled to and received Christ. The former is the act of faith, by which we fly to Christ as the only Saviour, cleave to him, and appropriate him to ourselves for salva- tion. The latter is the act by which, flying to Christ and resting on him, we trust that we have, and to eternity will have, communion with him in his death and its benefits; and joyfully repose in the firm persuasion that he died for us, and by his death reconciled us to God. Some divines call the former faith on Christ, and the latter faith respecting Christ. This respects Christ as having died for us; not so the former; for no one can know that Christ has died for him, unless he has first believed on him. As Christ
LEE
ITS EXTENT. 187 Es=—————= is promised to those only who believe and repent, 1 must first fly to him and embrace his merits with genuine repentance, before I can ou good grounds decide that the death of Christ belongs to me by the decree of God and the intention of Christ. My faith, however, does not cause that Christ died for me; for his death was antecedent to any regard had to faith as its meritorious cause, and the grace of faith is a fruit and effect of the death of Christ. But itis an evidence in all those who possess it, that Christ died for them. We infer the existence of the cause from the effect. And though I cannot yet assure myself that Christ has died for me, it does not follow that I must always remain in a state of doubt and anxiety, and that my faith must be weak and unstable. My faith may firmly rest upon the general promises of the Gospel to every believing and penitent sinner. Hence by certain consequence, when I find that I possess faith and repentance, I may assure myself that these promises belong to me.
Another objection is, (4.) “That, by our hypothesis, the foundation of the sinuer’s consolation is taken away, as we reason from a particular to a universal; thus, Christ died for some; therefore, he died for me. But by the rules of good reasoning, we should proceed from a universal to a particular; Christ died for each and every man; therefore, he died for me.” But it is gratuitous to say that we reason in this way, which
every one sees to be absurd. On the contrary, we reason from a universal to a particular, but in a certain order. Christdied for all who believe and repent; but I believe and repent; therefore, he died for me. Besides, it is false that any ground of consolation can be drawn from the absolute universality of Christ’s death; for that which is common to the godly and ungodly, to those who shall be saved and the multitudes who have been or shall be damned, can surely afford no solid comfort to any one. If it be supposed that Christ died for Judas and Pharaoh, who have perished notwithstanding, how can this free me from the fear of damnation? If you reply, that this fear may be taken away by faith, you admit that the atonement is not for all men, but for all believers. Your argument is: Christ died for all who believe; but I believe; therefore he died for me, and 1 shall be saved; “for whosoever believeth on the Son shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is exactly our mode l of reasoning. Further, no solid peace can be extracted from that which is insufficient for salvation. which avails not, and of itself cannot avail, to prevent damnation. And such is that universal grace for which our opponents contend, a grace which is never effect- ually applied to the sinner. What will it avail the sinner to know that Christ died for all, while it iscer- tain that, without faith, no one will ever become a partaker of the fruits of his death? Since faith is not given to all, will he not be always anxious to know whether he belongs to the number of those to whom it will be given? May not the same difficulties and scruples which can be urged against special grace and a special atonement, be also urged against a special decree of bestowing faith? If it be necessary to solid peace of conscience to hold that the mercy of the Father is to all and the redemption of the Son for all, it is equally necessary to hold that all are actually called and all experience the grace of the Spirit. If the sinner anxiously say, who knows whether Christ, since he has not died for all, had died for me? may he not also say, who knows whether God will give me faith, and whether I am of the number of the elect or of the reprobate? Besides, all such scruples originate from a desire to know what it is not given to man to know, at least, not in the way in which these people seek to know it. It becomes no mortal to institute a scrutiny, priori, into the secrets of the divine decree, relative to election and reprobation. In such inquiries a man should proceed & posteriori, by examining himself, in order to discover whether he has truly repented of his sins or not. If he has, he may, and ought to assure himself of the grace of God and his own election. If he has not, he ought, without delay, to apply himself to the use of the means which God has appointed; he ought to hear, and read and ponder the Word, and pour out ardent prayers to God for the EE m
———— EEE SS 190 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. gift of faith and repentance. Nor can any scruples occur on this subject, which our léarned opponents are not as much bound to remove as we; unless, with the Arminians, they maintain that every man has of himself, through the universal grace of God, sufficient power to believe and repent. But those against whom we have reasoned in this chapter, have, through the grace of God, always thus far professed to reject this dogma, as evidently Pelagian. The foundation of consolation, therefore, is to be sought, not from the universality of the atonement, but from the universality of the promises to all who believe and repent.
Although the reprobates who do not believe the Gospel will be deservedly condemned for their unbelief, yet it does not follow that they were commanded to believe that Christ died for them. There are various kinds of unbelief besides that of not believing that the atonement was made for them: such as, not believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Messiah sent by God, but that he was a false prophet and an impostor; or the not believing that faith in him is a condition necessary to salvation. All these arc acts of unbelief, and that of a very criminal nature, though those who are guilty of them may never have thought of Christ’s dying for them. That faith which Christ so often demands, and for the want of which he so severely reprehends the Jews, embraces in itself many things which must have preceded their belief that Christ is their Saviour and Redeemer. This, indeed, is not a thing which the Jew was immediately to believe. He must first have believed that salvation is not to be obtained by the law, either in its I ceremonies or legal works; that it is to be sought only in the Messiah promised in the prophets; that Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah; and that all will: I be saved who believe in him. All these general acts of faith must have preceded the belief that Christ I had died for him. Nor can it be replied, that all I these acts, and, above all, the special, appropriating act, are comprehended in the command to believe on Christ. As we have said above, though all these are commanded, yet it is in a certain order, and the latter are not commanded in any other way than as pre- ceded by the former; and, on the supposition of the first acts not having been performed, it is impossible that the latter should be. I Though God, by the preaching of the Gospel, offers Christ to sinners, it does not follow that he l must have died for all those to whom he is thus offered, or else the offer cannot be sincere. Because the offer is not absolute and simple, but it is made under the condition of faith and repentance. It is true, not. in the way of an accurate historical statement, which, whether believed or not, always remains true; but in the way of promise, the truth of which is ascertained when its condition is complied with, as Camerus declared. It does not say to the sinner, Clrist has died for you, and you shall be saved on account of i this death, whether you believe or not. Bat it informs him that salvation is procured by the death of Christ; that it is for all who believe; and that, by embracing it in faith, the sinner will find this to be a consolatory truth. From which it follows, that there is an indissoluble connection between faith and salvation; and that all who wish to enjoy Christ and his benefits, and who are called by the Gospel, are bound to exercise faith. But from this Gospel call, we by no means rightly infer that God, by his eternal and immutable decree, has destined Christ to be the Saviour of all who are called, or that he intended that Christ, by his death, should acquire salvation for each and every man. For the Gospel which is preached to those who are called, does not declare that, in the eternal decree of God, it has been ordained that in Christ redemption has been procured for each and every man. It rather announces to sinners a divine command, with a promise annexed, and teaches what is the duty of those who wish to be made partakers of salvation. We must not suppose hence, that such an offer as this is adverse to the divine decree. Because, though it does not answer to the decree of election, yet it answers to the decree respecting the means of saving those who are elected. In the decree (de personis) of election, God ordained Christ as the Saviour of the elect, and his death as the price of their redemption; and determined to bestow upon them that faith which should enable them to embrace the salvation procured by this death. Of this decree, the internal, saving operations of the Spirit are the expression and execution. In the decree (de rebus) respecting the means of salvation, God was pleased to connect Christ and faith together, and to offer Christ to the hearers of the Gospel. The preaching of the Gospel corresponds with, and is the execution of, this decree. It is of this decree that Christ speaks, when he says, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.” Promises thus conditional, made to those who believe and repent, unfold the conncetion which God has established between faith and salvation; and make known that those hearers only of the Gospel shall be saved who believe and repent. They, however, no more show that Christ died for all the hearers of the Gospel, than that they shall all believe and obtain pardon of sin. From the remission which they obtain who believe and repent, it is I proved that Christ died for them; and it would also be true, if others believed and repented, that Christ had died for them. But he who argues from this
that Christ has died for all, on the condition that they would believe, reasons falsely; for, from hypo- thetical premises, he draws an absolute conclusion, contrary to all good rules of reasoning.
Here let me crown this chapter by adding the judgment of Deodatus and Tronchin, the celebrated theologians deputed to the Synod of Dort, who, in the name of the whole Genevan Church, presented this to the venerable Synod, as the common faith of the Clmrch, never to be given np. De Univers. Gratie, Cap. II. Christ, out of the mere good pleasure of his Father, was appointed and given to be the Mediator and Ilecad of a certain number, who, by the election of God, were constituted his mystical body.””—(Th. 1.) “For these, Christ, fully aware of the divine purpose, willed and decreed to die, and to add to the infinite merit of his death a special inten- tion to render it efficacious. —(Th. 2.) “The universal propositions which are found in Scripture, do not mean that Christ, according to his Father’s pur- Jf pose and his own intention, died and made satisfaction for all and singular of the race. But they are to be restricted to the totality of Christ’s body; or else to be referred to that feature of the new Covenant, by which the Son receives for his inheritance all nations, without regard to external distinctions; that is, at his pleasure sends the ministry of the Word to all tribes and races indiscriminately, and out of them I gathers his Church. This is the foundation of the general call of the Gospel.”—(Th. 6.)