For Whom Did Christ Die?

In the following article, Charles Hodge addresses the question "For Whom
Did 
Christ Die?" from a Biblical perspective. This is quite informative.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

---

For Whom Did Christ Die?
by Charles Hodge

1. State of the Question

This is a question between Augustinians and Anti-Augustinians. The former 
believing that God from all eternity having elected some to everlasting 
life, had a special reference to their salvation in the mission and work
of 
his Son. The latter, denying that there has been any such election of a
part 
of the human family to salvation maintain that the mission and work of 
Christ had an equal reference to all mankind.

The question, therefore, does not, in the first place, concern the nature
of 
Christ's work. It is true, if it be denied that his work was a
satisfaction 
for sin, and affirmed that it was merely didactic; that his life, 
sufferings, and death were designed to reveal and confirm truth; then it 
would follow of course that it had no reference to one class of men more 
than to another, or to men more than to angels. Truth is designed for the 
illumination of all the minds to which it is presented. But admitting the 
work of Christ to have been a true satisfaction for sin, its design may 
still be an open question. Accordingly, Lutherans and Reformed, although 
they agree entirely as to the nature of the atonement, differ as to its 
design. The former maintain that it had an equal reference to all mankind,

the latter that it had special reference to the elect.

In the second place, the question does not concern the value of Christ's 
satisfaction. That Augustinians admit to be infinite. Its value depends on

the dignity of the sacrifice; and as no limit can be placed to the dignity

of the Eternal Son of God who offered Himself for our sins, so no limit
can 
be assigned to the meritorious value of his work. It is a gross 
misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that 
Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had 
more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine
of 
any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was 
suffcient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is 
sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary
for 
each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of
plants 
and animals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would 
have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption;

and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every 
child of Adam been saved through his blood.

In the third place, the question does not concern the suitableness of the 
atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The
righteousness 
of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for
justification 
by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no 
more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the
conditions 
of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the obedience

required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and 
therefore his work is equally suited to all.

In the fourth place, the question does not concern the actual application
of 
the redemption purchased by Christ. The parties to this controversy are 
agreed that some only, and not all of mankind are to be actually saved.

The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the 
mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ's coming into the world,

and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to

make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which
stood 
in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, was it 
specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of
those 
given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by
Augustinians, 
and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no election
of 
some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to
the 
elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow

from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it 
had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the
death 
of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had
not 
to, the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to 
every creature under heaven who hears, the gospel; but it gives no
authority 
for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures, to the whole
race 
at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable, blessings, both 
providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these 
effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects 
which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God,
it 
has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died 
"sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;" sufficiently
for 
all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in
which 
He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect
alone. 
The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect 
which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the 
salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects
of 
his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that

object?

2. Proof of the Augustinian Doctrine.

That these questions must be answered in the affirmative, is evident, -

1. From the nature of the covenant of redemption. It is admitted that
there 
was a covenant between the Father and the Son in relation to the salvation

of men. It is admitted that Christ came into the world in execution of
that 
covenant. The nature of the covenant, therefore, determines the object of 
his death. According to one view, man having by his fall lost the ability
of 
fulfilling, the conditions of the covenant of life, God, for Christ's
sake, 
enters into a new covenant, offering men salvation upon other and easier 
terms; namely, as some say, faith and repentance, and others evangelical 
obedience. If such be the nature of the plan of salvation, then it is 
obvious that the work of Christ has equal reference to all mankind. 
According to another view, the work of Christ was designed to secure the 
pardon of original sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit for all men, Jews
or 
Gentiles, and those are saved who duly improve the grace they severally 
receive. The former is the doctrine of the ancient Semi-Pelagians and
modern 
Remonstrants; the latter of the Wesleyan Arminians. The Lutherans hold
that 
God sent his Son to make a full and real legal satisfaction for the sins
of 
all mankind; and that on the ground of this perfect satisfaction the offer

of salvation is made to all who hear the gospel; that grace is given (in
the 
word and sacraments) which, if unresisted, is sufficient to secure their 
salvation. The French theologians at Saumur, in the 17th century, taught 
also that Christ came into the world to do whatever was necessary for the 
salvation of men. But God, foreseeing that, if left to themselves, men
would 
universally reject the offers of mercy, elected some to be the subjects of

his saving grace by which they are brought to faith and repentance
According 
to this view of the plan of salvation, election is subordinate to 
redemption. God first redeems all and then elects some. This is the view 
extensively adopted in this country. According to Augustinians, men, by 
their fall, having sunk into a state of sin and misery, might justly have 
been left, as were the fallen angels, to perish in their sins. But God, in

his infinite mercy, having determined to save a multitude whom no man
could 
number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, provided He would assume 
their nature and fulfil all righteousness in their stead. In the 
accomplishment of this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey
and 
suffer in the place of those thus given to Him, and for their salvation. 
This was the definite object of his mission, and therefore his death had a

reference to them which it could not possibly have to those whom God 
determined to leave to the just recompense of their sins. Now this plan
only 
supposes that God determined from eternity to do what in time He has 
actually accomplished. If it were just that all men should perish on
account 
of their sin it was just to leave a ****tion of the race thus to perish, 
while the salvation of the other ****tion is a matter of unmerited favour.
It 
can hardly be denied that God did thus enter into covenant with his Son. 
That is, that He did promise Him the salvation of his people as the reward

of his incarnation and sufferings; that Christ did come into the world and

suffer and die on that condition, and, having performed the condition, is 
entitled to the promised reward. These are facts so clearly and so 
repeatedly stated in the Scriptures as not to admit of their being called 
into question. But if such is the plan of God respecting the salvation of 
men then it of necessity follows that election precedes redemption; that
God 
had determined whom He would save before He sent his Son to save them. 
Therefore our Lord said that those given to Him by his Father should 
certainly come to Him, and that He would raise them up at the last day. 
These Scriptural facts cannot be admitted without its being also admitted 
that the death of Christ had a reference to his people, whose salvation it

rendered certain, which it had not to others whom, for infinitely wise 
reasons, God determined to leave to themselves. It follows, therefore,
from 
the nature of the covenant of redemption, as presented in the Bible, that 
Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for
his 
people and for their redemption.

Argument from the Doctrine of Election.

2. This follows also almost necessarily from the doctrine of election. 
Indeed it never was denied that Christ died specially for the elect until 
the doctrine of election itself was rejected. Augustine, the follower and 
expounder of St. Paul, taught that God out of his mere good pleasure had 
elected some to everlasting life, and held that Christ came into the world

to suffer and die for their salvation. He purchased them with his own 
precious blood. The Semi-Pelagians, in denying the doctrine of election,
of 
course denied that Christ's death had more reference to one class of men 
than to another. The Latin Church, so long as it held to the Augustinian 
doctrine of election, held also to Augustine's doctrine concerning the 
design and objects of Christ's death. All through the Middle Ages this was

one of the distinctive doctrines of those who resisted the progress of the

Semi-Pelagian party in the Western Church. At the time of the Reformation 
the Lutherans, so long as they held to the one doctrine held also to the 
other. The Reformed, in holding fast the doctrine of election, remained 
faithful to their denial of the doctrine that the work of Christ had equal

reference to all mankind. It was not until the Remonstrants in Holland, 
under the teaching of Arminius, rejected the Church doctrine of original 
sin, of the inability of fallen man to anything spiritually good, the 
sovereignty of God in election, and the perseverance of the saints, that
the 
doctrine that the atonement had a special reference to the people of God
was 
rejected. It is, therefore, a matter of history that the doctrine of 
election and the Augustinian doctrine as to the design of the work of
Christ 
have been inseparably united. As this connection is historical so also is
it 
logical. The one doctrine necessarily involves the other. If God from 
eternity determined to save one ****tion of the human race and not another,

it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal

reference to both ****tions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those 
whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense 
that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of 
salvation.

Express Declarations of Scripture.

3. We accordingly find numerous passages in which the design of Christ's 
death is declared to be, to save his people from their sins. He did not
come 
merely to render their salvation possible, but actually to deliver them
from 
the curse of the law, and from the power of sin. This is included in all
the 
Scriptural representations of the nature and design of his work. No man
pays 
a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is 
paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is no

sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates.

The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the 
occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly 
sacrifice is offered.

There are also very numerous passages in which it is expressly declared
that 
Christ gave Himself for his Church (Ephesians v. 25); that He laid down
his 
life for his sheep (John x. 15); that He laid down his life for his
friends 
(John xv. 13); that He died that He might gather together in one the 
children of God that are scattered abroad (John xi. 52); that it was the 
Church which He purchased with his blood (Acts xx. 28). When mankind are 
divided into two classes, the Church and the world, the friends and the 
enemies of God, the sheep and the goats, whatever is affirmed
distinctively 
of the one class is impliedly denied of the other. When it is said that 
Christ loved his Church and gave Himself for it, that He laid down his
life 
for his sheep, it is clear that something is said of the Church and of the

sheep, which is not true of those who belong to neither. When it is said 
that a man labours and sacrifices health and strength for his children, it

is thereby denied that the motive which controls him is mere philanthropy,

or that the design he has in view is the good of society. He may indeed be
a 
philanthropist, and he may recognize the fact that the well-being of his 
children ill promote the welfare of society, but this does not alter the 
case. It still remains true that love for his children is the motive, and 
their good his object. It is difficult, in the light of Ephesians v. 25, 
where the death of Christ is attributed to his love of his Church, and is 
said to have been designed for its sanctification and salvation, to
believe 
that He gave Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He intended
to 
save. Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a
denial 
of the doctrine that He died equally for all men.

Argument from the Special Love of God.

4. By the love of God is sometimes meant his goodness, of which all 
sensitive creatures are the objects and of whose benefits they are the 
recipients. Sometimes it means his special regard for the children of men,

not only as rational creatures, but also as the offspring of Him who is
the 
Father of the spirits of all men. Sometimes it means that peculiar, 
mysterious, sovereign, immeasurable love which passes knowledge, of which 
his own people, the Church of the first-born whose names are written in 
heaven, are the objects. Of this love it is taught, (1.) That it is 
infinitely great. (2.) That it is discriminating, fixed on some and not
upon 
others of the children of men. It is compared to the love of a husband for

his wife; which from its nature is exclusive. (B.) That it is perfectly 
gratuitous and sovereign, i.e., not founded upon the special
attractiveness 
of its objects, but like parental affection, on the mere fact that they
are 
his children. (4.) That it is immutable. (5.) That it secures all saving 
blessings, and even all good; so that even afflictions are among its
fruits 
intended for the greater good of the sufferer. Now to this love, not to 
general goodness, not to mere philanthropy, but to this peculiar and 
infinite love, the gift of Christ is uniformly referred. Herein is love,
not 
that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins. (1 John iv. 10.) Hereby perceive we the love of

God (or, hereby we know what love is), because He (Christ) laid down his 
life for us. (1 John iii. 16.) God commendeth his love toward us, in that 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans v. 8.) Greater love 
hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John

xv. 13.) Nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which
is 
in Christ Jesus. (Romans viii. 35-39.) He that spared not his own Son, but

delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us

all things? (Romans viii. 32.) The whole argument of the Apostle in Romans

v. 1-11, and especially throughout the eighth chapter, is founded upon
this 
infinite and immutable love of God to his people. From this he argues
their 
absolute security for time and eternity. Because He thus loved them He
gave 
his Son for them; and, having done this, He would certainly give them 
everything necessary for their salvation. No enemy should ever prevail 
against them; nothing could ever separate them from his love. This whole 
argument is utterly irreconcilable with the hypothesis that Christ died 
equally for all men. His death is referred to the peculiar love of God to 
his people, and was the pledge of all other saving gifts. This peculiar
love 
of God is not founded upon the fact that its objects are believers, for He

loved them as enemies, as ungodly, and gave his Son to secure their being 
brought to faith, repentance, and complete restoration to the divine
image. 
It cannot, therefore, be explained away into mere general benevolence or 
philanthropy. It is a love which secured the communication of Himself to
its 
objects, and rendered their salvation certain; and consequently could not
be 
bestowed upon all men, indiscriminately. This representation is so 
predominant in the Scriptures, namely, that the peculiar love of God to
his 
people, to his Church, to the elect, is the source of the gift of Christ,
of 
the mission of the Holy Spirit, and of all other saving blessings, that it

cannot be ignored in any view of the plan and purpose of salvation. With 
this representation every other statement of the Scriptures must be 
consistent; and therefore the theory which denies this great and precious 
truth, and which assumes that the love which secured the gift of God's 
eternal Son, was mere benevolence which had all men for its object, many
of 
whom are allowed to perish, must be unscriptural.

Argument from the Believer's Union with Christ.

6. Another argument is derived from the nature of the union between Christ

and his people. The Bible teaches, (1.) That a certain ****tion of the
human 
race were given to Christ. (2.) That they were given to Him before the 
foundation of the world. (3.) That all thus given to Him will certainly
come 
to Him and be saved. (4.) That this union, so far as it was from eternity,

is not a union of nature, nor by faith, nor by the indwelling of the Holy 
Spirit. It was a federal union. (5.) That Christ, therefore, was a federal

head and representative. As such He came into the world, and all He did
and 
suffered was as a representative, as a substitute, one acting in the place

and for the benefit of others. But He was the representative of those
given 
to Him, i.e., of those who were in Him. For it was this gift and the union

consequent upon it, that gave Him his representative character, or 
constituted Him a federal head. He was therefore the federal head, not of 
the human race, but of those given to Him by the Father. And, therefore,
his 
work, so far as its main design is concerned, was for them alone. Whatever

reference it had to others was subordinate and incidental. All this is 
illustrated and proved by the Apostle in Romans v. 12-21, in the parallel 
which he draws between Adam and Christ. All mankind were in Adam. He was
the 
federal head and representative of his race. All men sinned in him and
fell 
with him in his first transgression. The sentence of condemnation for his 
one offence passed upon all men. In like manner Christ was the 
representative of his people. He acted for them. What He did and suffered
in 
their place, or as their representative, they in the eye of the law, did
and 
suffered. By his obedience they are justified. As all in Adam died, so all

in Christ are made alive. Such is the nature of the union in both cases, 
that the sin of the one rendered certain and rendered just the death of
all 
united to Adam, and the righteousness of the other rendered certain and
just 
the salvation of all who are in Him. The sin of Adam did not make the 
condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual

condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of

men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He 
wrought. As it would be unreasonable to say that Adam acted for those who 
were not in him; so it is unscriptural to say that Christ acted for those 
who were not in Him. Nevertheless, the act of Adam as the head and 
representative of his race, was fruitful of evil consequences, not to man 
only, but to the earth and all that it contains; and so the work of Christ

is fruitful of good consequences to others than those for whom He acted.
But 
this does not justify anyone in saying that Adam acted as much as the 
representative of the brute creation, as of his posterity; neither does it

justify the assertion that Christ died for all mankind in the same sense 
that He died for his own people. This is all so clearly revealed in 
Scripture that it extorts the assent of those who are decidedly opposed to

the Augustinian system. One class of those opponents, of whom Whitby may
be 
taken as a representative, admit the truth of all that has been said of
the 
representative character of Adam and Christ. But they maintain that as
Adam 
represented the whole race, so also did Christ; and as in Adam all men
die, 
so in Christ are all made alive. But they say that this has nothing to do 
with spiritual death in the one case, or with the salvation of the soul in

the other. The death which came on all men for the sin of Adam, was merely

the death of the body; and the life which comes on all through Christ, is 
the restoration of the life of the body at the resurrection. The Wesleyans

take the same view of the representative character of Christ and of Adam. 
Each stood for all mankind. Adam brings upon all men the guilt of his
first 
sin and corruption of nature. Christ secures the removal of the guilt of 
original sin and a seed of grace, or principle of spiritual life, for all 
men. So also one class of Universalists hold that as all men are condemned

for the sin of Adam, so all are actually saved by the work of Christ. 
Rationalists also are ready to admit that Paul does teach all that 
Augustinians understand him to teach, but they say that this was only his 
Jewish mode of presenting the matter. It is not absolute truth, but a mere

transient form suited to the age of the Apostles. In all these cases, 
however, the main fact is conceded. Christ did act as a representative;
and 
what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those for 
whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted as 
the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be 
saved.

6. There is another argument on this subject generally presented, which 
ought not to be overlooked. The unity of the priestly office rendered the 
functions of the priesthood inseparable. The high-priest interceded for
all 
those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend beyond

the other. He bore upon his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He 
represented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their 
sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for no

others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true of

the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The former, we are told, were the 
types of the latter. Christ's functions as priest are in like manner
united. 
He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He 
himself, however, says expressly, "I pray not for the world, but for them 
which thou hast given me." (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, 
and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not 
actually receive the benefits of his redemption.

The Church Doctrine Embraces All the Facts of the Case.

7. The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the 
facts to be explained. The difficulty with all the Anti-Augustinian views
as 
to the design of Christ's death, is that while they are consistent with
more 
or less of the Scriptural facts connected with the subject, they are
utterly 
irreconcilable with not less clearly revealed and equally im****tant. They 
are consistent, for example, with the fact that the work of Christ lays
the 
foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that men 
are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer; and with the fact
that 
the Scriptures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference to 
all men. All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that the 
great design of Christ's death was to make the salvation of all men 
possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race. But

there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which

it cannot be reconciled. On the other hand it is claimed that the 
Augustinian doctrine recognizes all the Scriptural assertions connected
with 
the subject, and reconciles them all. If this be so, it must be the
doctrine 
of the Bible. The facts which are clearly revealed concerning the death or

work of Christ are,

(1.) That God from eternity gave a people to his Son.
(2.) That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is declared
to 
be the motive for the gift of his Son; and their salvation the design of
his 
mission.
(3.) That it was as their representative, head, and substitute, He came
into 
the world, assumed our nature, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the 
curse of the law.
(4.) That the salvation of all given to Him by the Father, in thus
rendered 
absolutely certain.

That the Augustinian scheme agrees with these great Scriptural facts, is 
readily admitted, but it is denied that it accounts for the fact that on
the 
ground of the work of Christ, salvation may be offered to every human
being; 
and that all who hear and reject the gospel, are justly condemned for
their 
unbelief. That these are Scriptural facts cannot be denied, and if the 
Augustinian doctrine does not provide for them, it must be false or 
defective. There are different grounds on which it is assumed that the 
Augustinian doctrine does not provide for the universal offer of the
gospel. 
One is, the false assumption that Augustinians teach that the satisfaction

of Christ was in all respects analogous to the payment of a debt, a 
satisfaction to commutative or commercial justice. Hence it is inferred
that 
Christ suffered so much for so many; He paid so much for one soul, and so 
much for another, and of course He would have been called upon to pay more

if more were to have been saved. If this be so, then it is clear that the 
work of Christ can justify the offer of salvation to those only whose
debts 
He has actually cancelled. To this view of the case it may be remarked, -

1. That this doctrine was never held by any historical church and the 
ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground
of 
ignorance.

2. It involves the greatest confusion of ideas. It confounds the
obligations 
which arise among men as owners of property, with the obligations of 
rational creatures to an infinitely holy God. A debtor is one owner, and a

creditor is another. Commutative justice requires that they should settle 
their mutual claims equitably. But God is not one owner and the sinner 
another. They do not stand in relation to each other as two proprietors.
The 
obligation which binds a debtor to pay a creditor, and the principle which

impels a just God to punish sin, are entirely distinct. God is the
absolute 
owner of all things. We own nothing. We cannot sustain to Him, in this 
respect, the relation of a debtor to his creditor. The objection in 
question, therefore, is founded on an entire mistake or misrepresentation
of 
the attribute of justice, to which, according to Augustinians, the 
satisfaction of Christ is rendered. Because the sin of Adam was the ground

of the condemnation of his race, does any man infer that He sinned so much

for one man and so much for another? Why then should it be said that
because 
the righteousness of Christ is the judicial ground of our salvation, that
He 
did and suffered so much for one man and so much for another?

3. As this objection is directed against a theory which no Church has ever

adopted, and as it attributes to God a form of justice which cannot
possibly 
belong to Him, so it is contrary to those scriptural representations on 
which the Augustinian doctrine is founded. The Scriptures teach that
Christ 
saves us as a priest, by offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. But
a 
sacrifice was not a payment of a debt, the payment of so much for so much.
A 
single victim was sometimes a sacrifice for one individual; sometimes for 
the whole people. On the great day of atonement the scape-goat bore the
sins 
of the people, whether they were more or less numerous. It had no
reference 
at all to the number of persons for whom atonement was to be made. So
Christ 
bore the sins of his people; whether they were to be a few hundreds, or 
countless millions, or the whole human family, makes no difference as to
the 
nature of his work, or as to the value of his satisfaction. What was 
absolutely necessary for one, was abundantly sufficient for all.

The objection, however, is at times presented in a somewhat different
form. 
Admitting the satisfaction of Christ to be in itself of infinite value,
how 
can it avail for the non-elect if it was not designed for them? It does
not 
avail for the fallen angels, because it was not intended for them; how
then 
can it avail for the non-elect, if not designed for them? How can a
ransom, 
whatever its intrinsic value, benefit those for whom it was not paid? In 
this form the objection is far more specious. It is, however, fallacious.
It 
overlooks the peculiar nature of the case. It ignores the fact that all 
mankind were placed under the same constitution or covenant. What was 
demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. 
Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is
required 
to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a 
representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. The 
secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing
to 
do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The 
righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its

nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus 
offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both
classes 
conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only 
ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to 
accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they 
would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The 
advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was
to 
render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is,
that 
if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what 
Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. 
Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as 
any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his
own 
people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and 
therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel. If a

****p containing the wife and children of a man standing on the shore is 
wrecked, he may seize a boat and hasten to their rescue. His motive is
love 
to his family; his purpose is to save them. But the boat which he has 
provided may be large enough to receive the whole of the ****p's company. 
Would there be any inconsistency in his offering them the op****tunity to 
escape? Or, would this offer prove that he had no special love to his own 
family and no special design to secure their safety. And if any or all of 
those to whom the offer was made, should refuse to accept it, some from
one 
reason, some from another; some because they did not duly appreciate their

danger; some because they thought they could save themselves; and some
from 
enmity to the man from whom the offer came, their guilt and folly would be

just as great as though the man had no special regard to his own family,
and 
no special purpose to effect their deliverance. Or, if a man's family were

with others held in captivity, and from love to them and with the purpose
of 
their redemption, a ransom should be offered sufficient for the delivery
of 
the whole body of captives, it is plain that the offer of deliverance
might 
be extended to all on the ground of that ransom, although specially
intended 
only for a part of their number. Or, a man may make a feast for his own 
friends, and the provision be so abundant that he may throw open his doors

to all who are willing to come. This is precisely what God, according to
the 
Augustinian doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to his
people, 
and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do

what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. 
Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life 
for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency 
with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to 
justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men.
So 
that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, "No man 
perishes for want of an atonement."

If the Atonement Be Limited in Design, It Must Be Restricted in the Offer.

There is still another ground on which it is urged that Augustinians
cannot 
consistently preach the gospel to every creature. Augustinians teach, it
is 
urged, that the work of Christ is a satisfaction to divine justice. From 
this it follows that justice cannot condemn those for whose sins it has
been 
satisfied. It cannot demand that satisfaction twice, first from the 
substitute and then from the sinner himself. This would be manifestly 
unjust, far worse than demanding no punishment at all. From this it is 
inferred that the satisfaction or righteousness of Christ, if the ground
on 
which a sinner may be forgiven, is the ground on which he must be
forgiven. 
It is not the ground on which he may be forgiven, unless it is the ground
on 
which he must be forgiven. If the atonement be limited in design it must
be 
limited in its nature, and if limited in its nature it must be limited in 
its offer. This objection again arises from confounding a pecuniary and a 
judicial satisfaction between which Augustinians are so careful to 
discriminate. This distinction has already been presented on a previous
page 
(470). There is no grace in accepting, a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot

be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the
debtor 
is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the
case 
of judicial satisfaction. If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a

matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may 
accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote 
period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it
may 
never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is

suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who 
hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine

justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant 
between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered
are 
not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they 
are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the 
children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in 
this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in 
infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding 
the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the
covenant 
which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial 
satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are
placed, 
it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they 
believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially 
designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the 
conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly 
consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the 
gospel. Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their 
views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so
far 
as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general 
offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or 
Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the 
atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all

mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as
to 
its application.

Certain Passages of Scripture Considered.

Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died
specially 
for his own people does account for the general offer of the gospel, how
is 
it to be reconciled with those passages which, in one form or another,
teach 
that He died for all men? In answer to this question, it may be remarked
in 
the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all
men. 
What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all 
men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the 
penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might
secure 
for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which,
in 
one im****tant sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the 
foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on
condition 
of faith and repentance. These are the universally admitted consequences
of 
his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this 
dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven
and 
upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition
of 
those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that
they 
may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but
they 
will not answer. He says, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast 
out." Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when

it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a 
propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.
He 
was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and
sufficiently 
for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the 
Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their
fundamental 
principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his
theories 
to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable,
but 
simply what the Bible teaches.

But, in the second place, it is to be remarked that general terms are
often 
used indefinitely and not comprehensively. They mean all kinds, or
classes, 
and not all and every individual. When Christ said, "I, if I be lifted up 
from the earth, will draw all men unto me," He meant men of all ages, 
classes, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God predicted 
that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon all 
flesh, all that was foretold was a general effusion of the Holy Ghost. And

when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of God,
it 
does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of all 
classes shall be saved. The same remark applies to the use of the term 
world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one
hesitates 
to call the Lord Jesus the "Salvator hominum." He is so hailed and so 
wor****pped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He 
actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the 
Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the 
Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous

only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who 
come unto Him. Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin
of 
the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came as
a 
sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.

In the third place, these general terms are always to be understood in 
reference to the things spoken of in the context. When all things, the 
universe, is said to be put in subjection to Christ it is, of course, to
be 
understood of the created universe. In 1 Corinthians xv. 27, Paul
expressly 
mentions this limitation, but in Hebrews ii. 8, it is not mentioned. It
is, 
however, just as obviously involved in the one passage as in the other.
When 
in Romans v. 18, it is said that by the righteousness of Christ the free 
gift of justification of life has come upon all men, it is of necessity 
limited to the all in Christ of whom the Apostle is speaking. So also in 1

Corinthians xv. 22, As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made 
alive (i.e., quickened with the life of Christ), it is in both members of 
the sentence not absolutely all, but the all in Adam and the all in
Christ. 
This is still more obvious in Romans viii. 32, where it is said that God 
gave up his own Son for us all. The us refers to the class of persons of 
which the whole chapter treats, namely, of those to whom there is no 
condemnation, who are led by the Spirit, for whom Christ intercedes, etc. 
Ephesians i. 10, and Colossians i. 20, are favorite texts with the 
Universalists, for they teach that all in heaven and on earth are reunited

unto God by Jesus Christ. They are right in understanding these passages
as 
teaching the salvation of all men, if by all in this connection we must 
understand all human beings. But why limit the word to all men? Why not 
include angels and even irrational creatures? The answer is, because the 
Bible teaches that Christ came to save men, and neither angels nor 
irrational animals. This is only saying that all must be limited to the 
objects of redemption. Who they are is to be learned not from these
general 
terms, but from the general teaching of Scripture. The all who are to be 
united in one harmonious body by Jesus Christ are the all whom He came to 
save. The same remark applies to Hebrews ii. 9, Christ tasted "death for 
every man." It is well known that Origen understood this of every
creature; 
others, of every rational creature; others, of every fallen rational 
creature; others, of every man; others, of every one of those given to the

Son by the Father. How are we to decide which of these interpretations is 
correct? So far as the mere signification of the words is concerned, one
is 
as correct as another. It is only from the analogy of Scripture that the 
meaning of the sacred writer can be determined. Christ tasted death for 
every one of the objects of redemption. Whether He came to redeem all 
created sensuous beings, or all rational creatures, or all men, or all
given 
to Him in the councils of eternity, the Bible must decide. The great 
majority of the passages quoted to prove that Christ died equally for all 
men come, under one or other of the classes just mentioned, and have no
real 
bearing on the question concerning the design of his death.

There is another class of passages with which it is said that the 
Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of those

peri****ng for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be 
remarked, first, that there is a sense, as before stated, in which Christ 
did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of 
salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect. He

therefore died sufficiently for all. In the second place, these passages 
are, in some cases at least, hypothetical. When Paul exhorts the
Corinthians 
not to cause those to perish for whom Christ died, he merely, exhorts them

not to act selfishly towards those for whom Christ had exhibited the 
greatest compassion. The passage neither asserts nor implies that any 
actually perish for whom Christ died. None perish whom He came to save; 
multitudes perish to whom salvation is offered on the ground of his death.

As God in the course of nature and in the dispensation of his providence, 
moves on in undisturbed majesty, little concerned at the apparent 
complication or even inconsistency of one effect or one dispensation with 
another; so the Spirit of God in the Bible unfolds the purposes, truths,
and 
dealings of God, just as they are, assured that even finite minds will 
ultimately be able to see the consistency of all his revelations. The 
doctrines of foreordination, sovereignty, and effectual providential 
control, go hand in hand with those of the liberty and responsibility of 
rational creatures. Those of freedom from the law, of salvation by faith 
without works, and of the absolute necessity of holy living stand side by 
side. On the same page we find the assurance of God's love to sinners, and

declarations that He would that all men should come unto Him and live,
with 
explicit assertions that He has determined to leave multitudes to perish
in 
their sins. In like manner, the express declarations that it was the 
incomprehensible and peculiar love of God for his own people, which
induced 
Him to send his Son for their redemption; that Christ came into the world 
for that specific object; that He died for his sheep; that He gave Himself

for his Church; and that the salvation of all for whom He thus offered 
Himself is rendered certain by the gift of the Spirit to bring them to
faith 
and repentance, are intermingled with declarations of good-will to all 
mankind, with offers of salvation to every one who will believe in the Son

of God, and denunciations of wrath against those who reject these
overtures 
of mercy. All we have to do is not to ignore or deny either of these modes

of representation, but to open our minds wide enough to receive them both,

and reconcile them as best we can. Both are true, in all the cases above 
referred to, whether we can see their consistency or not.

In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ 
died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of
all 
possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for
his 
own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain. It 
presents no higher view of the love of God, or of the value of Christ's 
work. It affords no better ground for the offer of salvation "to every 
creature," nor does it render more obvious the justice of the condemnation

of those who reject the gospel. They are condemned by God, angels, and
men, 
and by their own consciences, because they refuse to believe that Jesus is

the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and to love, wor****p, trust,
and 
obey Him accordingly. The opposite, or anti-Augustinian doctrine, is
founded 
on a partial view of the facts of the case. It leaves out of view the 
clearly revealed special love of God to his peculiar people; the union 
between Christ and his chosen; the representative character which He
assumed 
as their substitute; the certain efficacy of his sacrifice in virtue of
the 
covenant of redemption; and the necessary connection between the gift of 
Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It moreover leads to confused and 
inconsistent views of the plan of salvation, and to unscriptural and 
dangerous theories of the nature of the atonement. It therefore is the 
limited and meagre scheme; whereas the orthodox doctrine is catholic and 
comprehensive; full of consolation and spiritual power. as well as of 
justice to all mankind.