Chapter XLV: Section IV: The Offices Of Christ (6)

Martin Luther, when he had realized the truth of the Atonement,
was found sobbing before a crucifix and moaning: “Für mich! für
mich!”—“For me! for me!” Elisha Kane, the Arctic explorer, while
searching for signs of Sir John Franklin and his party, sent out
eight or ten men to explore the surrounding region. After several
days three returned, almost crazed with the cold—thermometer fifty
degrees below zero—and reported that the other men were dying
miles away. Dr. Kane organized a company of ten, and though
suffering himself with an old heart-trouble, led them to the
rescue. Three times he fainted during the eighteen hours of
marching and suffering; but he found the men. “We knew you would
come! we knew you would come, brother!” whispered one of them,
hardly able to speak. Why was he sure Dr. Kane would come? Because
he knew the stuff Dr. Kane was made of, and knew that he would
risk his life for any one of them. It is a parable of Christ’s
relation to our salvation. He is our elder brother, bone of our
bone and flesh of our flesh, and he not only risks death, but he
endures death, in order to save us.

(_g_) It gives us the only means of understanding the sufferings of Christ in the garden and on the cross, or of reconciling them with the divine justice.

Kreibig, Versöhnungslehre: “Man has a guilt that demands the
punitive sufferings of a mediator. Christ shows a suffering that
cannot be justified except by reference to some other guilt than
his own. Combine these two facts, and you have the problem of the
atonement solved.” J. G. Whittier: “Through all the depths of sin
and loss Drops the plummet of the Cross; Never yet abyss was found
Deeper than the Cross could sound.” Alcestis purchased life for
Admetus her husband by dying in his stead; Marcus Curtius saved
Rome by leaping into the yawning chasm; the Russian servant threw
himself to the wolves to rescue his master. Berdoe, Robert
Browning, 47—“To know God as the theist knows him may suffice for
pure spirits, for those who have never sinned, suffered, nor felt
the need of a Savior; but for fallen and sinful men the Christ of
Christianity is an imperative necessity; and those who have never
surrendered themselves to him have never known what it is to
experience the rest he gives to the heavy-laden soul.”

(_h_) As no other theory does, this view satisfies the ethical demand of human nature; pacifies the convicted conscience; assures the sinner that he may find instant salvation in Christ; and so makes possible a new life of holiness, while at the same time it furnishes the highest incentives to such a life.

Shedd: “The offended party (1) permits a substitution; (2)
provides a substitute; (3) substitutes himself.” George Eliot:
“Justice is like the kingdom of God; it is not without us, as a
fact; it is ‘within us,’ as a great yearning.” But it is both
without and within, and the inward is only the reflection of the
outward; the subjective demands of conscience only reflect the
objective demands of holiness.

And yet, while this view of the atonement exalts the holiness of
God, it surpasses every other view in its moving exhibition of
God’s love—a love that is not satisfied with suffering in and with
the sinner, or with making that suffering a demonstration of God’s
regard for law; but a love that sinks itself into the sinner’s
guilt and bears his penalty,—comes down so low as to make itself
one with him in all but his depravity—makes every sacrifice but
the sacrifice of God’s holiness—a sacrifice which God could not
make, without ceasing to be God; see _1 John 4:10_—“_Herein is
love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins._” The soldier who had
been thought reprobate was moved to complete reform when he was
once forgiven. William Huntington, in his Autobiography, says that
one of his sharpest sensations of pain, after he had been
quickened by divine grace, was that he felt such pity for God.
Never was man abused as God has been. _Rom. 2:4_—“_the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance_”; _12:1_—“_the mercies of God_”
lead you “_to present your bodies a living sacrifice_”; _2 Cor.
5:14, 15_—“_the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus
judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for
all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves,
but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again._” The effect
of Christ’s atonement on Christian character and life may be
illustrated from the proclamation of Garabaldi: “He that loves
Italy, let him follow me! I promise him hardship, I promise him
suffering, I promise him death. But he that loves Italy, let him
follow me!”

D. Objections to the Ethical Theory of the Atonement.

On the general subject of these objections, Philippi,
Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180, remarks: (1) that it rests with God
alone to say whether he will pardon sin, and in what way he will
pardon it; (2) that human instincts are a very unsafe standard by
which to judge the procedure of the Governor of the universe; and
(3) that one plain declaration of God, with regard to the plan of
salvation, proves the fallacy and error of all reasonings against
it. We must correct our watches and clocks by astronomic
standards.

(_a_) That a God who does not pardon sin without atonement must lack either omnipotence or love.—We answer, on the one hand, that God’s omnipotence is the revelation of his nature, and not a matter of arbitrary will; and, on the other hand, that God’s love is ever exercised consistently with his fundamental attribute of holiness, so that while holiness demands the sacrifice, love provides it. Mercy is shown, not by trampling upon the claims of justice, but by vicariously satisfying them.

Because man does not need to avenge personal wrongs, it does not
follow that God must not. In fact, such avenging is forbidden to
us upon the ground that it belongs to God; _Rom. 12:19_—“_Avenge
not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is
written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the
Lord._” But there are limits even to our passing over of offences.
Even the father must sometimes chastise; and although this
chastisement is not properly punishment, it becomes punishment,
when the father becomes a teacher or a governor. Then, other than
personal interests come in. “Because a father can forgive without
atonement, it does not follow that the state can do the same”
(Shedd). But God is more than Father, more than Teacher, more than
Governor. In him, person and right are identical. For him to let
sin go unpunished is to approve of it; which is the same as a
denial of holiness.

Whatever pardon is granted, then, must be pardon through
punishment. Mere repentance never expiates crime, even under civil
government. The truly penitent man never feels that his repentance
constitutes a ground of acceptance; the more he repents, the more
he recognizes his need of reparation and expiation. Hence God
meets the demand of man’s conscience, as well as of his own
holiness, when he provides a substituted punishment. God shows his
love by meeting the demands of holiness, and by meeting them with
the sacrifice of himself. See Mozley on Predestination, 390.

The publican prays, not that God may be merciful without
sacrifice, but: “_God be propitiated toward me, the sinner!_”
(_Luke 18:13_); in other words, he asks for mercy only through and
upon the ground of, sacrifice. We cannot atone to others for the
wrong we have done them, nor can we even atone to our own souls. A
third party, and an infinite being, must make atonement, as we
cannot. It is only upon the ground that God himself has made
provision for satisfying the claims of justice, that we are bidden
to forgive others. Should Othello then forgive Iago? Yes, if Iago
repents; _Luke 17:3_—“_If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him._” But if he does not repent? Yes, so far as
Othello’s own disposition is concerned. He must not hate Iago, but
must wish him well; _Luke 6:27_—“_Love your enemies, do good to
them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that
despitefully use you._” But he cannot receive Iago to his
fellowship till he repents. On the duty and ground of forgiving
one another, see Martineau, Seat of Authority, 613, 614; Straffen,
Hulsean Lectures on the Propitiation for Sin.

(_b_) That satisfaction and forgiveness are mutually exclusive.—We answer that, since it is not a third party, but the Judge himself, who makes satisfaction to his own violated holiness, forgiveness is still optional, and may be offered upon terms agreeable to himself. Christ’s sacrifice is not a pecuniary, but a penal, satisfaction. The objection is valid against the merely commercial view of the atonement, not against the ethical view of it.

Forgiveness is something beyond the mere taking away of penalty.
When a man bears the penalty of his crime, has the community no
right to be indignant with him? There is a distinction between
pecuniary and penal satisfaction. Pecuniary satisfaction has
respect only to the thing due; penal satisfaction has respect also
to the person of the offender. If pardon is a matter of justice in
God’s government, it is so only as respects Christ. To the
recipient it is only mercy. “_Faithful and righteous to forgive us
our sins_” (_1 John 1:9_)—faithful to his promise, and righteous
to Christ. Neither the atonement, nor the promise, gives the
offender any personal claim.

Philemon must forgive Onesimus the pecuniary _debt_, when Paul
pays it; not so with the personal _injury_ Onesimus has done to
Philemon; there is no forgiveness of this, until Onesimus repents
and asks pardon. An amnesty may be offered to all, but upon
conditions. Instance Amos Lawrence’s offering to the forger the
forged paper he had bought up, upon condition that he would
confess himself bankrupt, and put all his affairs into the hands
of his benefactor. So the fact that Christ has paid our debts does
not preclude his offering to us the benefit of what he has done,
upon condition of our repentance and faith. The equivalent is not
furnished by man, but by God. God may therefore offer the results
of it upon his own terms. Did then the entire race fairly pay its
penalty when one suffered, just as all incurred the penalty when
one sinned? Yes,—all who receive their life from each—Adam on the
one hand, and Christ on the other. See under Union with Christ—its
Consequences; see also Shedd, Discourses and Essays, 295 note,
321, and Dogm. Theol., 2:383-389; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:614-615
(Syst. Doct., 4:82, 83). _Versus_ Current Discussions in Theology,
5:281.

Hovey calls Christ’s relation to human sin a vice-penal one. Just
as vice-regal position carries with it all the responsibility,
care, and anxiety of regal authority, so does a vice-penal
relation to sin carry with it all the suffering and loss of the
original punishment. The person on whom it falls is different, but
his punishment is the same, at least in penal value. As vice-regal
authority may be superseded by regal, so vice-penal suffering, if
despised, may be superseded by the original penalty. Is there a
waste of vice-penal suffering when any are lost for whom it was
endured? On the same principle we might object to any suffering on
the part of Christ for those who refuse to be saved by him. Such
suffering may benefit others, if not those for whom it was in the
first instance endured.

If compensation is made, it is said, there is nothing to forgive;
if forgiveness is granted, no compensation can be required. This
reminds us of Narvaez, who saw no reason for forgiving his enemies
until he had shot them all. When the offended party furnishes the
compensation, he can offer its benefits upon his own terms. Dr.
Pentecost: “A prisoner in Scotland was brought before the Judge.
As the culprit entered the box, he looked into the face of the
Judge to see if he could discover mercy there. The Judge and the
prisoner exchanged glances, and then there came a mutual
recognition. The prisoner said to himself: ‘It is all right this
time,’ for the Judge had been his classmate in Edinburgh
University twenty-five years before. When sentence was pronounced,
it was five pounds sterling, the limit of the law for the
misdemeanor charged, and the culprit was sorely disappointed as he
was led away to prison. But the Judge went at once and paid the
fine, telling the clerk to write the man’s discharge. This the
Judge delivered in person, explaining that the demands of the law
must be met, and having been met, the man was free.”

(_c_) That there can be no real propitiation, since the judge and the sacrifice are one.—We answer that this objection ignores the existence of personal relations within the divine nature, and the fact that the God-man is distinguishable from God. The satisfaction is grounded in the distinction of persons in the Godhead; while the love in which it originates belongs to the unity of the divine essence.

The satisfaction is not rendered to a _part_ of the Godhead, for
the whole Godhead is in the Father, in a certain manner; as
omnipresence = _totus in omni parte_. So the offering is perfect,
because the whole Godhead is also in Christ (_2 Cor. 5:19_—“_God
was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself_”). Lyman Abbott
says that the word “propitiate” is used in the New Testament only
in the middle voice, to show that God propitiates himself.
Lyttelton, in Lux Mundi, 302—“The Atonement is undoubtedly a
mystery, but all forgiveness is a mystery. It avails to lift the
load of guilt that presses upon an offender. A change passes over
him that can only be described as regenerative, life-giving; and
thus the assurance of pardon, however conveyed, may be said to
obliterate in some degree the consequences of the past. 310—Christ
bore sufferings, not that we might be freed from them, for we have
deserved them, but that we might be enabled to bear them, as he
did, victoriously and in unbroken union with God.”

(_d_) That the suffering of the innocent for the guilty is not an execution of justice, but an act of manifest injustice.—We answer, that this is true only upon the supposition that the Son bears the penalty of our sins, not voluntarily, but compulsorily; or upon the supposition that one who is personally innocent can in no way become involved in the guilt and penalty of others,—both of them hypotheses contrary to Scripture and to fact.

The mystery of the atonement lies in the fact of unmerited
sufferings on the part of Christ. Over against this stands the
corresponding mystery of unmerited pardon to believers. We have
attempted to show that, while Christ was personally innocent, he
was so involved with others in the consequences of the Fall, that
the guilt and penalty of the race belonged to him to bear. When we
discuss the doctrine of Justification, we shall see that, by a
similar union of the believer with Christ, Christ’s justification
becomes ours.

To one who believes in Christ as the immanent God, the life of
humanity, the Creator and Upholder of mankind, the bearing by
Christ of the just punishment of human sin seems inevitable. The
very laws of nature are only the manifestation of his holiness,
and he who thus reveals God is also subject to God’s law. The
historical process which culminated on Calvary was the
manifestation of an age-long suffering endured by Christ on
account of his connection with the race from the very first moment
of their sin. A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 80-83—“A God of
love and holiness must be a God of suffering just so certainly as
there is sin. Paul declares that he fills up ‘_that which is
lacking of the afflictions of Christ ... for his body’s sake,
which is the church_’ (_Col. 1:24_); in other words, Christ still
suffers in the believers who are his body. The historical
suffering indeed is ended; the agony of Golgotha is finished; the
days when joy was swallowed up in sorrow are past; death has no
more dominion over our Lord. But sorrow for sin is not ended; it
still continues and will continue so long as sin exists. But it
does not now militate against Christ’s blessedness, because the
sorrow is overbalanced and overborne by the infinite knowledge and
glory of his divine nature. Bushnell and Beecher were right when
they maintained that suffering for sin was the natural consequence
of Christ’s relation to the sinning creation. They were wrong in
mistaking the nature of that suffering and in not seeing that the
constitution of things which necessitates it, since it is the
expression of God’s holiness, gives that suffering a penal
character and makes Christ a substitutionary offering for the sins
of the world.”

(_e_) That there can be no transfer of punishment or merit, since these are personal.—We answer that the idea of representation and suretyship is common in human society and government; and that such representation and suretyship are inevitable, wherever there is community of life between the innocent and the guilty. When Christ took our nature, he could not do otherwise than take our responsibilities also.

Christ became responsible for the humanity with which he was
organically one. Both poets and historians have recognized the
propriety of one member of a house, or a race, answering for
another. Antigone expiates the crime of her house. Marcus Curtius
holds himself ready to die for his nation. Louis XVI has been
called a “sacrificial lamb,” offered up for the crimes of his
race. So Christ’s sacrifice is of benefit to the whole family of
man, because he is one with that family. But here is the
limitation also. It does not extend to angels, because he took not
on him the nature of angels (_Heb. 2:16_—“_For verily not of the
angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of
Abraham_”).

“A strange thing happened recently in one of our courts of
justice. A young man was asked why the extreme penalty should not
be passed upon him. At that moment, a gray-haired man, his face
furrowed with sorrow, stepped into the prisoner’s box unhindered,
placed his hand affectionately upon the culprit’s shoulder, and
said: ‘Your honor, we have nothing to say. The verdict which has
been found against us is just. We have only to ask for mercy.’
‘We!’ There was nothing against this old father. Yet, at that
moment he lost himself. He identified his very being with that of
his wayward boy. Do you not pity the criminal son because of your
pity for his aged and sorrowing father? Because he has so
suffered, is not your demand that the son suffer somewhat
mitigated? Will not the judge modify his sentence on that account?
Nature knows no forgiveness; but human nature does; and it is not
nature, but human nature, that is made in the image of God”; see
Prof. A. S. Coats, in The Examiner, Sept. 12, 1889.

(_f_) That remorse, as a part of the penalty of sin, could not have been suffered by Christ.—We answer, on the one hand, that it may not be essential to the idea of penalty that Christ should have borne the identical pangs which the lost would have endured; and, on the other hand, that we do not know how completely a perfectly holy being, possessed of super-human knowledge and love, might have felt even the pangs of remorse for the condition of that humanity of which he was the central conscience and heart.

Instance the lawyer, mourning the fall of a star of his
profession; the woman, filled with shame by the degradation of one
of her own sex; the father, anguished by his daughter’s
waywardness; the Christian, crushed by the sins of the church and
the world. The self-isolating spirit cannot conceive how perfectly
love and holiness can make their own the sin of the race of which
they are a part.

Simon, Reconciliation, 366—“Inasmuch as the sin of the human race
culminated in the crucifixion which crowned Christ’s own
sufferings, clearly the life of humanity entering him
subconsciously must have been most completely laden with sin and
with the fear of death which is its fruit, at the very moment when
he himself was enduring death in its most terrible form. Of
necessity therefore he felt as if he were the sinner of sinners,
and cried out in agony: ‘_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?_’ (_Mat. 27:46_).”

Christ could realize our penal condition. Beings who have a like
spiritual nature can realize and bear the spiritual sufferings of
one another. David’s sorrow was not unjust, when he cried: “_Would
I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!_” (_2 Sam.
18:33_). Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 117—“Is penitence
possible in the personally sinless? We answer that only one who is
perfectly sinless can perfectly repent, and this identification of
the sinless with the sinner is vital to the gospel.” Lucy Larcom:
“There be sad women, sick and poor. And those who walk in garments
soiled; Their shame, their sorrow I endure; By their defeat my
hope is foiled; The blot they bear is on my name; Who sins, and I
am not to blame?”

(_g_) That the sufferings of Christ, as finite in time, do not constitute a satisfaction to the infinite demands of the law.—We answer that the infinite dignity of the sufferer constitutes his sufferings a full equivalent, in the eye of infinite justice. Substitution excludes identity of suffering; it does not exclude equivalence. Since justice aims its penalties not so much at the person as at the sin, it may admit equivalent suffering, when this is endured in the very nature that has sinned.

The sufferings of a dog, and of a man, have different values.
Death is the wages of sin; and Christ, in suffering death,
suffered our penalty. Eternity of suffering is unessential to the
idea of penalty. A finite being cannot exhaust an infinite curse;
but an infinite being can exhaust it, in a few brief hours. Shedd,
Discourses and Essays, 307—“A golden eagle is worth a thousand
copper cents. The penalty paid by Christ is strictly and literally
_equivalent_ to that which the sinner would have borne, although
it is not _identical_. The vicarious bearing of it excludes the
latter.” Andrew Fuller thought Christ would have had to suffer
just as much, if only one sinner were to have been saved thereby.

The atonement is a unique fact, only partially illustrated by debt
and penalty. Yet the terms “purchase” and “ransom” are Scriptural,
and mean simply that the justice of God punishes sin as it
deserves; and that, having determined what is deserved, God cannot
change. See Owen, quoted in Campbell on Atonement, 58, 59.
Christ’s sacrifice, since it is absolutely infinite, can have
nothing added to it. If Christ’s sacrifice satisfies the Judge of
all, it may well satisfy us.

(_h_) That if Christ’s passive obedience made satisfaction to the divine justice, then his active obedience was superfluous.—We answer that the active obedience and the passive obedience are inseparable. The latter is essential to the former; and both are needed to secure for the sinner, on the one hand, pardon, and, on the other hand, that which goes beyond pardon, namely, restoration to the divine favor. The objection holds only against a superficial and external view of the atonement.

For more full exposition of this point, see our treatment of
Justification; and also, Owen, in Works, 5:175-204. Both the
active and the passive obedience of Christ are insisted on by the
apostle Paul. Opposition to the Pauline theology is opposition to
the gospel of Christ. Charles Cuthbert Hall, Universal Elements of
the Christian Religion, 140—“The effects of this are already
appearing in the impoverished religious values of the sermons
produced by the younger generation of preachers, and the
deplorable decline of spiritual life and knowledge in many
churches. Results open to observation show that the movement to
simplify the Christian essence by discarding the theology of St.
Paul easily carries the teaching of the Christian pulpit to a
position where, for those who submit to that teaching, the
characteristic experiences of the Christian life became
practically impossible. The Christian sense of sin; Christian
penitence at the foot of the Cross; Christian faith in an atoning
Savior; Christian peace with God through the mediation of Jesus
Christ—these and other experiences, which were the very life of
apostles and apostolic souls, fade from the view of the ministry,
have no meaning for the younger generation.”

(_i_) That the doctrine is immoral in its practical tendencies, since Christ’s obedience takes the place of ours, and renders ours unnecessary.—We answer that the objection ignores not only the method by which the benefits of the atonement are appropriated, namely, repentance and faith, but also the regenerating and sanctifying power bestowed upon all who believe. Faith in the atonement does not induce license, but “works by love” (Gal. 5:6) and “cleanses the heart” (Acts 15:9).

Water is of little use to a thirsty man, if he will not drink. The
faith which accepts Christ ratifies all that Christ has done, and
takes Christ as a new principle of life. Paul bids Philemon
receive Onesimus as himself,—not the old Onesimus, but a new
Onesimus into whom the spirit of Paul has entered (_Philemon 17_).
So God receives us as new creatures in Christ. Though we cannot
earn salvation, we must take it; and this taking it involves a
surrender of heart and life which ensures union with Christ and
moral progress.

What shall be done to the convicted murderer who tears up the
pardon which his wife’s prayers and tears have secured from the
Governor? Nothing remains but to execute the sentence of the law.
Hon. George F. Danforth, Justice of the New York State Court of
Appeals, in a private letter says: “Although it may be stated in a
general way that a pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed
for the offence and the guilt of the offender, so that in the eye
of the law he is as innocent as if he had never committed the
offence, the pardon making him as it were a new man with a new
credit and capacity, yet a delivery of the pardon is essential to
its validity, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It
cannot be forced upon him. In that respect it is like a deed. The
delivery may be in person to the offender or to his agent, and its
acceptance may be proved by circumstances like any other fact.”

(_j_) That if the atonement requires faith as its complement, then it does not in itself furnish a complete satisfaction to God’s justice.—We answer that faith is not the ground of our acceptance with God, as the atonement is, and so is not a work at all; faith is only the medium of appropriation. We are saved not by faith, or on account of faith, but only through faith. It is not faith, but the atonement which faith accepts, that satisfies the justice of God.

Illustrate by the amnesty granted to a city, upon conditions to be
accepted by each inhabitant. The acceptance is not the ground upon
which the amnesty is granted; it is the medium through which the
benefits of the amnesty are enjoyed. With regard to the
difficulties connected with the atonement, we may say, in
conclusion, with Bishop Butler: “If the Scripture has, as surely
it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious,
left somewhat in it unrevealed, all conjectures about it must be,
if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any one
reason to complain for want of further information, unless he can
show his claim to it.” While we cannot say with President Stearns:
“Christ’s work removed the hindrances in the eternal justice of
the universe to the pardon of the sinner, but _how_ we cannot
tell”—cannot say this, because we believe the main outlines of the
plan of salvation to be revealed in Scripture—yet we grant that
many questions remain unsolved. But, as bread nourishes even those
who know nothing of its chemical constituents, or of the method of
its digestion and assimilation, so the atonement of Christ saves
those who accept it, even though they do not know _how_ it saves
them. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 264-267—“Heat was once
thought to be a form of matter; now it is regarded as a mode of
motion. We can get the good of it, whichever theory we adopt, or
even if we have no theory. So we may get the good of
reconciliation with God, even though we differ as to our theory of
the Atonement.”—“One of the Roman Emperors commanded his fleet to
bring from Alexandria sand for the arena, although his people at
Rome were visited with famine. But a certain shipmaster declared
that, whatever the emperor commanded, his ship should bring wheat.
So, whatever sand others may bring to starving human souls, let us
bring to them the wheat of the gospel—the substitutionary
atonement of Jesus Christ.” For answers to objections, see
Philippi, Glaubenslehre, iv, 2:156-180; Crawford, Atonement,
384-468; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:526-543; Baird, Elohim Revealed,
623 sq.; Wm. Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ; Hopkins, Works,
1:321.

E. The Extent of the Atonement.

The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the _atonement_ therefore is limited, but the _application_ of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Upon this principle of a universal atonement, but a special application of it to the elect, we must interpret such passages as Eph. 1:4, 7; 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; John 17:9, 20, 24—asserting a special efficacy of the atonement in the case of the elect; and also such passages as 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11—asserting that the death of Christ is for all.

Passages asserting special efficacy of the atonement, in the case
of the elect, are the following: _Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without __ blemish before him in love_”; _7_—“_in whom we have our
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,
according to the riches of his grace_”; _2 Tim. 1:9, 10_—God “_who
saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given
us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been
manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who
abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel_”; _John 17:9_—“_I pray for them: I pray not for the
world, but for those whom thou hast given me_”; _20_—“_Neither for
these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through
their word_”; _24_—“_Father, that which thou hast given me, I
desire that where I am, they also may be with me; that they may
beheld my glory, which thou hast given me._”

Passages asserting that the death of Christ is for all are the
following: _2 Pet 2:1_—“_false teachers, who shall privily bring
in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought
them_”; _1 John 2:2_—“_and he is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for the whole world_”; _1 Tim.
2:6_—Christ Jesus “_who gave himself a ransom for all_”;
_4:10_—“_the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially
of them that believe_”; _Tit. 2:11_—“_For the grace of God hath
appeared, bringing salvation to all men._” _Rom. 3:22_ (A.
V.)—“_unto all and upon all them that believe_”—has sometimes been
interpreted as meaning “unto all men, and upon all believers” (εἰς
= destination; ἐπί = extent). But the Rev. Vers. omits the words
“_and upon all_,” and Meyer, who retains the words, remarks that
τοῦς πιστεύοντας belongs to πάντας in both instances.

Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of
our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal
blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by
virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us
justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the
Atonement is “sufficient for all; effectual for many.” J. M.
Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—“It was Samuel Hopkins of
Rhode Island (1721-1803) who first declared that Christ had made
atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists
affirmed.” We should say “as some Calvinists affirmed”; for, as we
shall see, John Calvin himself declared that “Christ suffered for
the sins of the whole world.” Alfred Tennyson once asked an old
Methodist woman what was the news. “Why, Mr. Tennyson, there’s
only one piece of news that I know,—that Christ died for all men.”
And he said to her; “That is old news, and good news, and new
news.”

If it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply:

(_a_) That the atonement of Christ secures for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance, together with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression.

If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut
off at the first sin. That man lives after sinning, is due wholly
to the Cross. There is a pretermission, or “_passing over of the
sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God_” (_Rom. 3:25_),
the justification of which is found only in the sacrifice of
Calvary. This “_passing over_,” however, is limited in its
duration: see _Acts 17:30, 31_—“_The times of ignorance therefore
God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all
everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he
will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath
ordained._”

One may get the benefit of the law of gravitation without
understanding much about its nature, and patriarchs and heathen
have doubtless been saved through Christ’s atonement, although
they have never heard his name, but have only cast themselves as
helpless sinners upon the mercy of God. That mercy of God was
Christ, though they did not know it. Our modern pious Jews will
experience a strange surprise when they find that not only
forgiveness of sin but every other blessing of life has come to
them through the crucified Jesus. _Matt. 8:11_—“_many shall come
from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven._”

Dr. G.W. Northrop held that the work of Christ is universal in
three respects: 1. It reconciled God to the whole race, apart from
personal transgression; 2. It secured the bestowment upon all of
common grace, and the means of common grace; 3. It rendered
certain the bestowment of eternal life upon all who would so use
common grace and the means of common grace as to make it morally
possible for God as a wise and holy Governor to grant his special
and renewing grace.

(_b_) That the atonement of Christ has made objective provision for the salvation of all, by removing from the divine mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to him.

Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 604—“On God’s side, all is now taken
away which could make a separation,—unless any should themselves
choose to remain separated from him.” The gospel message is not:
God will forgive if you return; but rather: God _has_ shown mercy;
only believe, and it is your portion in Christ.

Ashmore, The New Trial of the Sinner, in Christian Review,
26:245-264—“The atonement has come to all men and upon all men.
Its coëxtensiveness with the effects of Adam’s sin is seen in that
all creatures, such as infants and insane persons, incapable of
refusing it, are saved without their consent, just as they were
involved in the sin of Adam without their consent. The reason why
others are not saved is because when the atonement comes to them
and upon them, instead of consenting to be included in it, they
reject it. If they are born under the curse, so likewise they are
born under the atonement which is intended to remove that curse;
they remain under its shelter till they are old enough to
repudiate it; they shut out its influences as a man closes his
window-blind to shut out the beams of the sun; they ward them off
by direct opposition, as a man builds dykes around his field to
keep out the streams which would otherwise flow in and fertilize
the soil.”

(_c_) That the atonement of Christ has procured for all men the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, and the combined agency of the Christian church and of the Holy Spirit, by which these incentives are brought to bear upon them.

Just as much sun and rain would be needed, if only one farmer on
earth were to be benefited. Christ would not need to suffer more,
if all were to be saved. His sufferings, as we have seen, were not
the payment of a pecuniary debt. Having endured the penalty of the
sinner, justice permits the sinner’s discharge, but does not
require it, except as the fulfilment of a promise to his
substitute, and then only upon the appointed condition of
repentance and faith. The _atonement_ is unlimited,—the whole
human race might be saved through it; the _application_ of the
atonement is limited,—only those who repent and believe are
actually saved by it.

Robert G. Farley: “The prospective mother prepares a complete and
beautiful outfit for her expected child. But the child is
still-born. Yet the outfit was prepared just the same as if it had
lived. And Christ’s work is completed as much for one man as for
another, as much for the unbeliever as for the believer.”

Christ is specially the Savior of those who believe, in that he exerts a special power of his Spirit to procure their acceptance of his salvation. This is not, however, a part of his work of atonement; it is the application of the atonement, and as such is hereafter to be considered.

Among those who hold to a limited atonement is Owen. Campbell
quotes him as saying: “Christ did not die for all the sins of all
men; for if this were so, why are not all freed from the
punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their
unbelief,—they will not believe.’ But this unbelief is a sin, and
Christ was punished for it. Why then does this, more than other
sins, hinder them from partaking of the fruits of his death?”

So also Turretin, loc. 4, quæs. 10 and 17; Symington, Atonement,
184-234; Candlish on the Atonement; Cunningham, Hist. Theol.,
2:323-370; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:464-489. For the view presented
in the text, see Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 374; 689-698;
706-709; Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2:485-549; Jenkyn, Extent of the
Atonement; E. P. Griffin, Extent of the Atonement; Woods, Works,
2:490-521; Richards, Lectures on Theology, 302-327.

2. Christ’s Intercessory Work.

The Priesthood of Christ does not cease with his work of atonement, but continues forever. In the presence of God he fulfils the second office of the priest, namely that of intercession.

_Heb. 7:23-25_—“_priests many in number, because that by death
they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth
forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he is
able to save to the uttermost them that draw near onto God through
him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them._” C. H.
M. on _Ex. 17:12_—“The hands of our great Intercessor never hang
down, as Moses’ did, nor does he need any one to hold them up. The
same rod of God’s power which was used by Moses to smite the rock
(Atonement) was in Moses’ hand on the hill (Intercession).”

Denney’s Studies in Theology, 166—“If we see nothing unnatural in
the fact that Christ prayed for Peter on earth, we need not make
any difficulty about his praying for us in heaven. The relation is
the same; the only difference is that Christ is now exalted, and
prays, not with strong crying and tears, but in the sovereignty
and prevailing power of one who has achieved eternal redemption
for his people.”

A. Nature of Christ’s Intercession.—This is not to be conceived of either as an external and vocal petitioning, nor as a mere figure of speech for the natural and continuous influence of his sacrifice; but rather as a special activity of Christ in securing, upon the ground of that sacrifice, whatever of blessing comes to men, whether that blessing be temporal or spiritual.

_1 John 2:1_—“_if any man sin, we have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous_”; _Rom. 8:34_—“_It is Jesus
Christ that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who
is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
us_”—here Meyer seems to favor the meaning of external and vocal
petitioning, as of the glorified God-man: _Heb. 7:25_—“_ever
liveth to make intercession for them._” On the ground of this
effectual intercession he can pronounce the true sacerdotal
_benediction_; and all the benedictions of his ministers and
apostles are but fruits and emblems of this (see the Aaronic
benediction in _Num. 6:24-26_, and the apostolic benedictions in
_1 Cor. 1:3_ and _2 Cor. 13:14_).

B. Objects of Christ’s Intercession.—We may distinguish (_a_) that general intercession which secures to all men certain temporal benefits of his atoning work, and (_b_) that special intercession which secures the divine acceptance of the persons of believers and the divine bestowment of all gifts needful for their salvation.

(_a_) General intercession for all men: _Is. 53:12_—“_he bare the
sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors_”; _Luke
23:34_—“_And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not
what they do_”—a beginning of his priestly intercession, even
while he was being nailed to the cross.

(_b_) Special intercession for his saints: _Mat. 18:19, 20_—“_if
two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they
shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in
heaven. For when two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them_”; _Luke 22:31, 32_—“_Simon,
Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as
wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail
not_”; _John 14:16_—“_I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter_”; _17:9_—“_I pray for them; I pray not for
the world, but for those whom thou hast given me_”; _Acts
2:33_—“_Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear_”; _Eph. 1:6_—“_the
glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the
Beloved_”; _2:18_—“_through him we both have our access in one
Spirit unto the Father_”; _3:12_—“_in whom we have boldness and
access in confidence through our faith in him_”; _Heb. 2:17,
18_—“_Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto
his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high
priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the
sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being
tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted_”; _4:15,
16_—“_For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore
draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may
receive mercy, and may find grace to help as in time of need_”; _1
Pet 2:5_—“_a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ_”; _Rev. 5:6_—“_And I saw
in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb standing, as though it had
been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the
seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth_”; _7:16,
17_—“_They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither
shall the sun strike upon them, nor any heat: for the lamb that is
in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall
guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe
away every tear from their eyes._”

C. Relation of Christ’s Intercession to that of the Holy Spirit.—The Holy Spirit is an advocate within us, teaching us how to pray as we ought; Christ is an advocate in heaven, securing from the Father the answer of our prayers. Thus the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit are complements to each other, and parts of one whole.

_John 14:26_—“_But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you_”; _Rom.
8:26_—“_And in like manner the Spirit __ also helpeth our
infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit
himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered_”; _27_—“_and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is
the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the
saints according to the will of God._”

The intercession of the Holy Spirit may be illustrated by the work
of the mother, who teaches her child to pray by putting words into
his mouth or by suggesting subjects for prayer. “The whole Trinity
is present in the Christian’s closet; the Father hears; the Son
advocates his cause at the Father’s right hand; the Holy Spirit
intercedes in the heart of the believer.” Therefore “When God
inclines the heart to pray, He hath an ear to hear.” The impulse
to prayer, within our hearts, is evidence that Christ is urging
our claims in heaven.

D. Relation of Christ’s Intercession to that of saints.—All true intercession is either directly or indirectly the intercession of Christ. Christians are organs of Christ’s Spirit. To suppose Christ in us to offer prayer to one of his saints, instead of directly to the Father, is to blaspheme Christ, and utterly misconceive the nature of prayer.

Saints on earth, by their union with Christ, the great high
priest, are themselves constituted intercessors; and as the high
priest of old bore upon his bosom the breastplate engraven with
the names of the tribes of Israel (_Ex. 28:9-12_), so the
Christian is to bear upon his heart in prayer before God the
interests of his family, the church, and the world (_1 Tim.
3:1_—“_I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications,
prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men_”). See
Symington on Intercession, in Atonement and Intercession, 256-308;
Milligan, Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord.

Luckock, After Death, finds evidence of belief in the intercession
of the saints in heaven as early as the second century. Invocation
of the saints he regards as beginning not earlier than the fourth
century. He approves the doctrine that the saints pray _for us_,
but rejects the doctrine that we are to pray _to them_. Prayers
_for_ the dead he strongly advocates. Bramhall, Works,
1:57—Invocation of the saints is “not necessary, for two reasons:
_first_, no saint doth love us so well as Christ: no saint hath
given us such assurance of his love, or done so much for us as
Christ; no saint is so willing to help us as Christ; and
_secondly_, we have no command from God to invocate them.” A. B.
Cave: “The system of human mediation falls away in the advent to
our souls of the living Christ. Who wants stars, or even the moon,
after the sun is up?”

III. The Kingly Office of Christ.

This is to be distinguished from the sovereignty which Christ originally possessed in virtue of his divine nature. Christ’s kingship is the sovereignty of the divine-human Redeemer, which belonged to him of right from the moment of his birth, but which was fully exercised only from the time of his entrance upon the state of exaltation. By virtue of this kingly office, Christ rules all things in heaven and earth, for the glory of God and the execution of God’s purpose of salvation.

(_a_) With respect to the universe at large, Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom of power; he upholds, governs, and judges the world.

_Ps. 2:6-8_—“_I have set my king.... Thou art my son.... uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession_”; _8:6_—“_madest him to
have dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all
things under his feet_”; _cf._ _Heb. 2:8, 9_—“_we see not yet all
things subjected to him. But we beheld ... Jesus ... crowned with
glory and honor_”; _Mat. 25:31, 32_—“_when the Son of man shall
come in his glory ... then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations_”;
_28:18_—“_All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on
earth_”; _Heb. 1:3_—“_upholding all things by the word of his
power_”; _Rev. 19:15, 16_—“_smite the nations ... rule them with a
rod of iron ... King of Kings, and Lord of Lords._”

Julius Müller, Proof-texts, 34, says incorrectly, as we think,
that “the _regnum naturæ_ of the old theology is
unsupported,—there are only the _regnum gratiæ_ and the _regnum
gloriæ_.” A. J. Gordon: “Christ is now creation’s sceptre-bearer,
as he was once creation’s burden-bearer.”

(_b_) With respect to his militant church, it is a kingdom of grace; he founds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on earth.

_Luke 2:11_—“_born to you ... a Savior, who is Christ the lord_”;
_19:38_—“_Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the
Lord_”; _John 18:36, 37_—“_My kingdom is not of this world....
Thou sayest it, for I am a king.... Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice_”; _Eph. 1:22_—“_he put all things in subjection
under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the
church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in
all_”; _Heb. 1:8_—“_of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever._”

Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:677 (Syst. Doct., 4:142, 143)—“All great
men can be said to have an after-influence (_Nachwirkung_) after
their death, but only of Christ can it be said that he has an
after-activity (_Fortwirkung_). The sending of the Spirit is part
of Christ’s work as King.” P. S. Moxom, Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan.
1886:25-36—“Preëminence of Christ, as source of the church’s
being; ground of the church’s unity; source of the church’s law;
mould of the church’s life.” A. J. Gordon: “As the church endures
hardness and humiliation as united to him who was on the cross, so
she should exhibit something of supernatural energy as united with
him who is on the throne.” Luther: “We tell our Lord God, that if
he will have his church, he must look after it himself. We cannot
sustain it, and, if we could, we should become the proudest asses
under heaven.... If it had been possible for pope, priest or
minister to destroy the church of Jesus Christ, it would have been
destroyed long ago.” Luther, watching the proceedings of the Diet
of Augsburg, made a noteworthy discovery. He saw the stars bestud
the canopy of the sky, and though there were no pillars to hold
them up they kept their place and the sky fell not. The business
of holding up the sky and its stars has been on the minds of men
in all ages. But we do not need to provide props to hold up the
sky. God will look after his church and after Christian doctrine.
For of Christ it has been written in _1 Cor. 15:25_—“_For he must
reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet._”

“Thrice blessed is he to whom is given The instinct that can tell
That God is in the field when he Is most invisible.” Since Christ
is King, it is a duty never to despair of church or of the world.
Dr. E. G. Robinson declared that Christian character was never
more complete than now, nor more nearly approaching the ideal man.
We may add that modern education, modern commerce, modern
invention, modern civilization, are to be regarded as the
revelations of Christ, the Light of the world, and the Ruler of
the nations. All progress of knowledge, government, society, is
progress of his truth, and a prophecy of the complete
establishment of his kingdom.

(_c_) With respect to his church triumphant, it is a kingdom of glory; he rewards his redeemed people with the full revelation of himself, upon the completion of his kingdom in the resurrection and the judgment.