YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

VINDICATION

OF THE

UNIVERSALITY of the ATONEMENT.

IN REPLY
T0 THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED WORK OF THE REV. DR. CANDLISH
OF EDINBURGH, ENTITLED, ." THE ATONEMENT: ITS REALITY,
COMPLETENESS, AND EXTENT:'

BY
JAMES MORISON,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, GLASGOW.

G L A S GO W:
A. WALLACE & CO., 123 N. DUNDAS STREET.
LONDON: WARD & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW.
1861.

VINDICATION

UNIVEESALITY OF THE ATONEMENT.

IN EEPLY
TO THE EECEIjjSLY PUBLISHED WOEK OF THE EEV. DE. CANDLISH
OF EDINBUEGH, ENTITLED, " TEE ATONEMENT, ITS REALITY,
COMPLETENESS, ^.ND EXTENT."

JAMES MOKISON,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, GLASGOW.

GLASGOW:
A. WALLACE & CO., 123 N. DUKDAS STKEET.
LONDON : WAED & CO., PATEENOSTEE EOW.
186 1.

PREFATORY NOTE.

The following Vindication of the Universality of the Atonement needs no vindica
tion. The author had a right, and, as he apprehends, some special call in addition,
to undertake the task. And now that it appears before the general public, he must
just leave it, so far as its execution is concerned, to speak for itself. He trusts thatit
will be found to be characterized throughout by literary courtesy. And he hopes
that it may be ministrant not only to the ventilation, but also to the" elucidation,
confirmation, and extension, of "the truth as it is in Jesus." Not desiring to catch
at any advantage, he has disdained to avail himself of the peccadilloes which were
peculiar to Dr. Candlish's original Inquiry.

Gakioch House,
Mabthill,
Giasgow, March 1, 1861.

VINDICATION

UNIVEESALITY OP the ATONEMENT.
In eeplt to the eecently published wobx of the Rev. De. Candlish
of Edutbtjegh, Entitled " The Atonement: its Beauty, Complete
ness, and Extent.'' .(London: Nelson. 1861.)

This volume of Dr. Candlish is an elaborated revision and expansion of
a work which he published in 1845, and which he entitled An Inquiry
into the Completeness and Extent of the Atonement, with especial reference
to the Universal Offer of the Gospel, and the Universal Obligation to be
lieve. That earlier work was occasioned by the discussions which had
been agitating for several years the churches of the United Secession
Synod, and which have left their impress, at once in the modified theo
logy of a large proportion of the United Presbyterians, and in the
existence and extension of the Evangelical Union. Dr. Candlish seems
to have been apprehensive that the tidal wave of inquiry, which was
then rolling over Scotland, might invade even the uplands of the Free
Church. And he hasted to construct, out of the best materials he could
hurriedly collect, an embankment of protection, over which the defiance
might be hurled. — Hitherto mayest thou come, but no farther, and
here shall thy proud waves be stayed ! The embankment, if really
needed, proved sufficient. The waves were arrested at the border-land
of the Eree Church. And to this day, so far as we are aware, there
has been no earnest discussion or real difference, on the doctrines in
dispute, among the ministers or other influential members of that large
and energetic denomination.
Whether indeed the entire credit of the immunity of the Eree
Church from doctrinal discussion on "the Atonement Controversy," be
due to Dr. Candlish's embankment, we know not. We should rather
suspect that the honour must be somehow or other divided. Eor, to
speak the truth, the structure which he reared was made up of rather
loose materials. If the waters had really reached it, or at least laved and
B

6 , Vindication of the
lashed and searched it, it must speedily have crumbled down, or broken
up, at numerous points of the circumvaUation ; and the flood would
have poured in through the gateways of the gaps. But its strength, we
presume, was not severely tested. And thus it stood ; and still stands.
It stands now, moreover, stronger than ever. Evjery part has been
carefully overhauled. All along the line, it has undergone numerous
repairs. Everywhere it is consolidated. Everywhere an additional
elevation has been added. The blocks are more nicely jointed, and
more firmly knit. And the entire rampart now wears the aspect of
careful construction and of very considerable strength. It seems to say
to every sort of invasion, Try your best.
i In. short, Dr. Candlish s book is much improved. Its composition is
admirable. Its argumentation is ingenious, and pervadingly subtle.
And though we caunot conceal that it is imbued with a somewhat high
assumption, it is not defaced by any rancour of debate, or blotted by
unpleasant personalities. Take it all in all, it is as able a defence of
Calvinism as .Scotland has produced since the days of Samuel Ruther
ford. De. Candlish's two Peeltminaey Chaptees.
We shall not detain our readers on the first two chapters. The
former is entitled " The Eormularies of the Reformation as dis
tinguished, in regard to this subject, from those of the patristic church."
The latter is headed thus " The Westminster Standards — Relation
between the Atonement and Eaith — The Sovereignty of God." They
contain much of which we approve, and not' a little to which' we
would be disposed to object. But their bearing on the real merits of
the controverted topics is not only circuitous, but comparatively unim
portant. Had the doctor, instead of confining his patristic investiga
tions to the meagre creeds of ecclesiastical antiquity, extended his
examination to the general writings of the Fathers, he would have
found that his favourite Calvinism was certainly unknown during the
first three centuries of the Christian era. Every one who has dipped
•into patristic literature "knows," as Hosheim has remarked, "that
the peculiar doctrines to which victory was assigned by the Synod of
Dort, were absolutely unknown in the 'first ages of the Christian
church." (Cent. 17, Sect, ii : P. 2 : ch. 2, § 19.) Whosoever desires
evidence of the truth of Mosheim's assertion, and has at the same time
but slight opportunity for making acquaintance with the original
writings of the Fathers, has only to avail himself 6f the great historical
work of Gerhard John Voss.
In speaking of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctor
remarks : — "In fact, it may be said of every error, that, if traced to its
ultimate source, it will be found to take its rise in a denial of the
doctrine which is the leading characteristic of the Westminster
Standards,' — the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God." (p. 31.)
But here we differ entirely in our opinion. We do not suppose that
divergence from the leading and distinctive features of the Westminster
Confession is any evidence at all of real error. We cannot look upon

Universality of the Atonement. 1
that elaborate compilation as constituting any actual standard or touch
stone of truth. We go higher than to the Confession. " To the law and
to the testimony " is our motto. It is no human divines who have
delivered to us the oracles which control our faith. Nothing is
oracular to us but the divinity of the Infinite Divine. But even though
this were not the case, we should certainly not regard the maintenance
of the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God as the leading
characteristic of the theology which is embodied in the Westminster
Confession. It cannot be. For while we ourselves differ entirely from .
that theology, there is no principle of which we have all along been
more tenacious than that of the absolute sovereignty of God. It is
with us one of the axioms of theology. And God is, in our opinion,
absolutely sovereign, not merely in the one-sided sense of Dr. Edward
Williams and Drs. Payne and Wardlaw, the sense of being infinitely
free to confer his favours on whom he pleases. He is absolutely
sovereign in reference to the darker, as well as in reference to the
brighter, elements of his dispensations. In everything which he does, he
does only what he chooses to do. " He has mercy on whom he will have
mercy." And he brings judgment on whom he will bring judgment :
" whom he will he hardeneth." He is sovereign in all the boons of
his grace; and sovereign too in all the bolts of his wrath. We by no
means imagine that sovereignty and justice are contraries. But while
we thus believe in God's absolute sovereignty, we do not suppose that
it pleases him to exercise his peerless supremacy in any way which is in
consistent with wisdom or justice or benevolence. We have no idea that
either the decrees or the executive acts of his government are uncon^
ditional. It is not, we apprehend, the good pleasure of the infinite
Sovereign of the universe to conduct his administration, on the principle
either' of utter nnconditionalism or of only partial benevolence.
But we would now pass from these introductory chapters.

De. Candlish's Polemic against the Sceipttjeal Foundation of the
univeesality of the atonemext.
The third chapter of Dr. .Candlish's work is entitled " The method
of Scriptural proof — classification and examination of texts usually
alleged against the Calvinistic doctrine."
Method of Sceittueal Peoof.
As to " the method of Scriptural proof," we very much accord with
the general principles of interpretation which the doctor lays down.
He i

" It is a great mistake to imagine that to treat a subject scripturally means merely to
string together a catalogue or concordance of quotations ; or that the mind of the
Spirit is to be ascertained, on any matter, by a bare enumeration of some of his say
ings with regard to it. His meaning is to be known, as the meaning of any other
author is to be known. In the case of an ordinary writer of books, especially if he is a
man of diversified tastes and talents, — a voluminous writer also, and one of vast compass
and variety, — having many differentstyles for different uses and occasions, and personat-

8 Vindication of the
ing by turns many different characters, real or imaginary, whom he makes the vehicles
¦for conveying his sentiments, — we gather his real and ultimate mind on any particular
subject, not so much from separate sentences and phrases, culled and collected, perhaps,
to serve a purpose, as from an intelligent and comprehensive study of his leading train
of thought, with special reference to the scope and tenor of his reasoning on those
large and wide views of truth which from time to time occupy and fill his soul. Surely
when the divine Spirit is the author with whose very miscellaneous works we have to
deal, the same rule of simple justice and fair play ought to be observed. This seems
to be what is meant by 'the analogy of the faith;' to which, as a rule or canon of
Scriptural interpretation, sound and judicious divines are accustomed to attach con
siderable value." (pp. 51, 52.)
We agree: though we rather think that the apostle's expression
"the analogy of the faith" (Rom. xii. 6, original) has been turned
awry by the theologians to whom Dr. Candlish refers. The " faith"
referred to is not, we apprehend, objective, but subjective. The
expression does not denote the proportional harmony of the sum total of
revelation. It seems rather to refer to the relative measure of the know
ledge of the truth which is characteristic of the individual believer. It
is translated in our version " the proportion of faith." And it is
explained by what is said in the 3rd verse of the same chapter, in
which every one is enjoined " to think soberly (of himself) according
as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
But apart from this abuse of the apostle's expression, we coincide on
the whole in the principle of interpretation, for which Dr. Candlish
contends. The Bible is not written like a book of exact science. It is
not a logically assorted collection of precise propositions. And it would
be doing it injustice to treat its individual expressions in some such
way, as we would interpret the detailed statements of Euclid's
Geometry or of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia. The Bible is a book, not
only for the millions, but for the hundreds of millions. And it was
needful, therefore, that it should be popular in its structure. There is
indeed a grand philosophy, the ^-grandest of all philosophies, lying
underneath its popular representations. But he who should seize hold
of its popular representations, and especially he who should catch at the
j.ots and tittles of these representations, as if they were the exact
scientific exhibition of the august realities revealed, is utterly unfit, in
consequence of the slight " proportion of his faith," to throw light upon
the intricacies and infinitudes of theology.
At the same time, however, it must ever be borne in mind that we
cannot arrive at a just conception of the scheme of truth which under
lies the entire verbal revelation, except in the way of understanding,
one by one, the several details of which it consists. The whole is made
up of parts. And we cannot begin a priori with the whole, and thence
descend by a process of deduction, to the interpretation of the parts.
We must commence a posteriori with the parts, and thence inductively
ascend to the whole.. We must begin with individual words, and go on
to clauses, and proceed to sentences, and then mount to paragraphs
and sections and books ; and by and by we may culminate in a colliga
tion and combination of the whole. But if we err much in our inter
pretation of particular words and clauses, it will be in vain to expect
that we shall be correct in the sum of our general doctrines. We might
as well anticipate that if we make numerous mistakes in our estimate of
the value of our penny-pieces and shillings, we shall, notwithstanding,

Universality of the Atonement. 9
reach' a correct calculation of the number of our pounds. Dr. Candlish'
farther says, —
" It is good general rule, well known, though alas ! not so well observed, among
controversialists, as a rule which ought to regulate their discussions of one another's
views, and their citations of other parties to bear them witness : That a writer's
authority, iu any given passage, does not extend beyond the particular topic which
he has on hand. You may appeal to him as pronouncing a judgment ou the matter
before him, but not as deciding another question which may not, at the time, have
been in his mind at all. Nothing can be fairer, or more necessary, than this maxim ;
which may be regarded as a fair extension or explanation of the general canon of in
terpretation already indicated." (pp. 57, 58.)
The maxim is a good one, when it is applied within definite and
somewhat narrow limits. And we should be glad that it were allowed,
so far as our immediate controversy on the atonement is concerned,
to rule at once the process and the issue. All that we should
be disposed to stipulate for, would be, an impartial distribution of its
application. But at the same time, Dr. Candlish seems to us to have announced
the principle of interpretation too absolutely. And indeed if he were
to abide by his own unqualified and rather unguarded enunciation of it,
he would be constrained, we suspect, to inculpate the logic of the in
spired writers themselves, and condemn too some of the positive
doctrinal determinations of his own Westminster Confession of Faith.
Dr. Candlish overlooks entirely the large domain of valid incidental
evidence. He forgets that our Lord himself, if tried by his maxim,
would have been found reasoning unsoundly, when he so wonderfully
established' the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead by the Old
Testament asseveration, " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob." For assuredly, in the passage in which
that asseveration was originally embodied, there is no evidence at all
that it was the aim of God to expound, or even to intimate, the particular
doctrine which the Sadducees denied. And does not Paul argue, from
the fact that it is written in the law of Moses " Thou shalt not muzzle
the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn," that it is right that
" they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." (1 Cor. ix.
9-1.4). Dr. Candlish will admit that he does. But the source of
the apostle's argument demonstrates that he really extended the Old
Testament writer's authority " beyond the particular topic which he
had in hand." And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews un
doubtedly did the same, when he quotes the words " I will put my
trust in him," as containing a valid proof that "both he that sanctifieth
and they who are sanctified are all of one (nature)." (Heb ii. 11-13.)
The doctor must qualify his maxim. If he do not, he will not only
be constrained to cast imputations on the reasonings of the inspired, he
will be perplexed in finding authentication for some of the doctrines
which are counted by himself as pillars in the current creeds of the un
inspired. He will, for example, be at a loss to prove the doctrine of
the Trinity. For while there are numerous incidental evidences of its
Scripturality, he will search far and wide and long, ere he find in the
volume of the book, any set or formal exposition of the " topic." And
the same difficulty will meet him, and overcome him too, when he
attempts to establish that Sabbatism should be characteristic of the first

10 Vindication of the
rather than of the seventh day of the week ; or that children should be
baptized. ' Indeed, the doctor's evidence for many of the particular
doctrines which he maintains, will be found by himself, when he turns
his attention to the subject, to be entirely incidental. And no won
der. For it is natural when there is exuberance, and especially divine
exuberance, that a writer's pathway should be strewed on either side
with much that is over and above what is absolutely essential to " the
particular topic which he has in hand."
As to our controversies on the atonement and faith, it is evident that
they were unknown in the earliest age. There were apparently debates
among the Jews as to whether the atonement had any reference to the
Gentiles. But when that reference was admitted, it never seems to
have been disputed whether it was inclusive of them all, or only of a
secretly selected number. And as it was not contended by any that
Christ had not died for the Jews, so there seems to have been no dis
cussion in Judea or put of it, which arrayed believers on opposite sides
of the question, Did Christ die for all the seed of Israel, or only for a
peculiar seed within the seed ? Our modern controversy on the extent
of the atonement was then unknown. And, as we believe, the limita
tion of our Saviour's death to the merely elected was then undreamed
of. Dj. like manner we find no evidence that the nature of the faith,
through means of which the sinner is saved, was made, in that
primitive era, the subject of debate. No difficulty seems to have been
.then felt with regard to the mere mental act which was the
turning point of the soul's everlasting welfare. It was disputed
whether it was not by doing the deeds of the law, rather than by
simply believing on Christ, that men were to be justified. But neither
those who held the affirmative in this discussion, nor those who main
tained the negative, raised any dispute, or seemed to feel any difficulty,
in reference to what is psychologically meant when men are commanded
to "believe and live."
Under such circumstances, it would be in vain to expect that the
inspired, writers should largely handle, as specific topics of discourse,
either the extent of the atonement on the one hand, or the nature of
faith on the other. It is more reasonable to expect that the references
to these subjects should in general be incidental. And, when we take
into account that the pens of the writers were guided by a higher
Spirit than their own, we need not hesitate to accept with unwavering
confidence whatever they really wrote. Even what is simply thrown
out by the way, or scattered in glorious prodigality from the teeming
fulness of their cornucopia, will be found to be true. We need not
fear. We may be heartily thankful and glad to catch the drops from
the over-brimmings of their " cup of blessing." We may be grateful to
be permitted to gather the redundant crumbs which are found
beneath the table which God has spread for us in this wilderness. For
' if the feast be of " fat things " and of " the finest of the wheat," the
superfluous morsels which fall over from the superabundance, may be
readily appropriated, not only as altogether innocuous, but as also
divinely nutritious.

Universality of the Atonement. 11

De. Candlish's Ceitio.t7e on Rom. v. 18.
The first passage of Scripture which Dr. Candlish seeks to wrest
from underneath the doctrine of a universal atonement is Romans v.
18, " Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men
to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men to justification of life." He remarks regarding this
age,—

"The sole object of the apostle is to explain, or assert the principle of imputation,
— the principle upon which God deals with many as represented by one, or with one as
representing many. For this end, he draws a parallel between the imputation of
Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Evidently, however, the
whole value of the comparison turns upon the nature of the transaction on either side,
not upon its extent. The identity, or agreement, or correspondence, intended to be
pointed out, isan identity in respect of principle. To stretch the language used, so as
to make it decide the question of extent, is to represent the apostle as inconsistent with
himself in. the very matter which he is formally and expressly discussing. For what
is the principle of imputation, as he lays it down ? It implies these two things : first,
That a vicarious headship be constituted in one person ; and, secondly, That the whole
result or consequence of the trial upon which that one person is placed, whether it be
success or failure, be actually and in fact communicated and conveyed to all whom he
represents. _ Of this last condition, he is most careful to prove that it was realized in
the imputation of Adam's sin; and for this purpose he insists very specially on the
universality of death, — its having reigned ' even over them that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression' (ver. 14.) But it is a condition which, if
insisted on at the other side of the antithesis, — and without it the parallel wholly fails
and the doctrine- of imputation is gone, — is positively irreconcilable with the notion
of a general or universal redemption, except upon the hypothesis of universal salva
tion. For it is of the very essence of the principle of imputation, according to this
parallel, that precisely in the same manner in which the guilt of Adam's sin, with
the death which it entailed did, in point of fact, as well as in law, pass from him to
those who were represented by him and identified with him ; so, the righteousness of
Christ, with the life and salvation which it involves, must be really and actually, in
its consequences as well as in its merit, made over to all the parties interested. Hence,
if the parallel is pressed, in regard to the extent as well as the nature of the two trans
actions, life and salvation by Christ must actually be as universal as death by
Adam. Thus, if this text be unwisely pressed beyond the purpose which the writer,
at the time of writing, had in his view, — in a manner contrary to the rule of sound
criticism and sound sense, — it is really not the limitation of Christ's work to his peo
ple that will come to be called in question, hut the fact of the final condemnation of
any of the wicked." (pp. 60-62.)
As for ourselveSj, we have never been disposed to look upon Rom. v.
18 as one of the pillars of the doctrine of universal atonement. And
yet we cannot doubt that the passage would never have been penned,
had it not been a fact that, when Christ accomplished his decease, he
made a propitiatory sacrifice " for the sins of the whole world.-" The
entire section of Rom. v. 12-21 is designed by the apostle to furnish a
confirmative illustration of the divinely appointed method of attaining
eternal life, as expounded by him in the preceding part of the epistle.
That method is gloriously adapted to the necessities of men's circum
stances. They are transgressors of the holy,. just, and good moral
law. And thus they cannot inherit eternal life by means of a perfect
righteousness of their own. And yet it is a perfect righteousness which
is needed. It is only perfect righteousness which can constitute a title
to eternal life. Whence then is this righteousness to be obtained ?

12 Vindication of the
From Jesus. He brought in, not for himself, but for his representees,
an " everlasting righteousness." He is " the Lord their righteousness."
In him, and in him alone, they have heaven-meriting righteousness.
It is thus not by their own righteousness, but by means of the
righteousness of another, that sinners are to live and "reign in life."
The doctrine is glorious. But it might seem to some to be astoundingly
strange ; and unprecedented also in its fundamental principle. But
no, says the apostle. It has a parallel. Look at the relation of Adam
to his descendants. All who are connected with Adam by birth suffer
death, not on account of sins which they themselves have committed,
but on account of a sin which he alone committed. " In Adam all
die." " By one offence death reigned through one." They then who
are connected with Adam by birth, die on account of a sin out of them
selves, a sin Which they never committed, a sin which was committed
only by their representative in the great paradisial economy. And this
is precisely, argues the apostle, the principle on which they who are
connected with Christ by faith live for ever. They obtain everlasting
life through a righteousness out of themselves, a righteousness which they
never wrought out, a righteousness which was wrought out by their
representative in the great propitiatory economy. " They who receive
abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life
by one, Jesus Christ." Hence it is that Adam was a "Figure of him
who was to come." And He who came was the second Adam. To all
who are connected with the first Adam by birth, his sin is imputed
unto temporal death. To all who are connected 'with the second
Adam by faith, his righteousness is imputed unto eternal life.
Such is the purport, we apprehend, of Rom. v. 12-21. And on the
whole we agree, with Dr. Candlish, when he says that " the value of
the comparison turns upon the nature of the transaction on either side,
not upon its extent." But we cannot agree with him when he adds
that the principle of imputation, as laid down by the apostle," implies
"that the whole result or consequence of the trial upon which" the
vicarious Heads were placed, " whether it be success or failure, be
actually and in fact communicated and conveyed to all whom they repre
sent." The apostle was by no means taking such an absolute view of
the relation of the representees to the representatives. From the
nature of the case he regarded the representees of the first Adam as con
nected with him by birth. And it is only in virtue of this connection that
they suffer death on account of his sin. The scope moreover of his entire
discussion before the particular section on which we are commenting,
combines with the contents of the section itself, to shew that, with the
exception of what he says in the 18th verse, he is referring to such only
of the representees of the second Adam as are connected -with rn'm by
faith. " For if by one offence death reigned through one ; much more
they which receive (the) abundance of (the) grace, and of the gift of
righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." As it is not all,
however, of the second Adam's representees who are thus connected with
him, the apostle, outriding the limits of his former more exclusive re
ference, says in ver. 18, " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment
came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of
one, the free gift oame upon all men unto justifioation of life ;" or, as

Universality of the Atonement. 13
the verse would be more literally rendered, " Therefore, as by one
transgression, judgment is unto all men, to condemnation (viz. to death) ;
even so by one righteousness, the free-gift is unto all men, to justification
of life." Christ was truly the second Adam. He was the Representa
tive not of a mere section of mankind, but of the whole race. And
hence the free-gift of his righteousness, though not " upon" all men,
is "unto" them all, as a free-gift which is " to justification of life."
Yet it is only the believing representees, who, by " receiving the abun
dance' of the free-gift," shall actually "reign in life." And it is these
believing representees — the representees who are connected with the
second Adam by faith, who are represented in the rest of the apostle's
comparative estimate, as occupying the counter-part position in relation
to those who are connected with the first Adam by birth.
On his principles, Dr. Candlish can never account for the universal
terms used by the apostle in Rom. v. 18. On our's, the reason of their
use is obvious. And when it is noticed that the apostle's expression is
"unto all" and not "upon all," it is seen at once that we are not shut
up to the alternative of limited atonement or universal salvation. There
is a third alternative ; universal propitiation. And that reconciles all.
De. Candlish's Critique on 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.
The second passage considered by Dr. Candlish is 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, —
" For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because we thus judge, that
if one died for all, then were all dead : and that he died for all, that
they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
him which died for them, and rose again." On this interesting passage,
the doctor says, —
" The apostle's theme is the union and identification of believers with Christ in his
death and in his life. The object is to remind them that as Christ's death has become
their' s, so also has his life. Hence it is to his purpose to argue thus : First, ' If one died
for all, then were all dead ;' all became dead, or literally, died, — namely, in and with
him, through participation in his death. And, secondly, ' He died for all, that they
which live,' — the living — those who through participation of his death become par
takers also pf his life — ' should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him
which died for them and rose again.' Such reasoning is relevant and conclusive for
the apostle's object. He thus brings out the principle of imputation, — that whatever
befalls the Head must be held to pass, and must actually pass, efficaciously, to all whom
he represents ; and he- connects with it the principle of vital union, — that all thus re
presented are partakers in all things, in his death and in his life, with the Head. The
whole argument in the context depends on these two principles. The question of the
extent of the atonement is not once before the writer throughout the whole of his fer
vid practical appeal, in which he is not dogmatizing, but simply enforcing the high
standard of spiritual privilege and duty. The hearing of Christ's death on the unre-
generate is not within the scope of his reasoning ; and to regard him as giving a de
cision on that point, instead of urging home its bearing upon believers, is to introduce
an element altogether heterogeneous. Not only is the argument thus hopelessly per
plexed, but, as in the former case, it is found to tell in favour of the notion of univer
sal salvation rather than anything else ; making actual salvation, through the death
and life of Christ, co-extensive with death through the sin of Adam. For in that case
we must interpret the expression 'then were all dead,' as referring to this death of all
men through Adam's sin. Such, however, is not in reality the Apostle's view. What
he has before him is the death which the 'all' for whom Christ died do themselves
die, in and with him, when, in virtue of their being united to him, they are ' cruci
fied with him ' (Gal. ii. 20)."^pp. 62, 63.

14 Vindication of the
But all this does not in the least account for the apostle's use of the
word "all." And assuredly, if Dr. Candlish will adhere to his own
principle of judging a writer's mind, " not so much from separate sen
tences and phrases," as " from an intelligent and comprehensive study
of his leading train of thought," he will never be able to show that the
apostle's theme in the context of 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, is "the union and
identification of believers with Christ in his death and in his life."
The apostle is not speaking at all of the experience or privileges or
duties of believers in general, or of the Corinthian believers in parti
cular. He is speaking of himself as a devoted but persecuted labourer
in the work of the Gospel ; and he is vindicating his own lofty method
of procedure. "His object," says Dr. Candlish, "is to remind be
lievers that as Christ's death has become their' s, so also has his life."
But in reality there is nothing farther from his mind. It is his one
aim to account for his own particular manner of life, and to commend it
to the approbation of the Corinthian believers. The immediately pre
ceding verses run thus : —
" We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be
present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we
may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,
that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath
done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we per
suade men : but we are made manifest unto God ; and I trust also are made manifest
in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you
occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which
glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to
God ; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause." (ver. 8-13.)
The apostle is thus by no means enforcing on believers in a " fervid
practical appeal " the " high standard of spiritual privilege and duty."
In giving such a representation of the apostle's purpose, Dr. Candlish
was not looking at the context, and noticing what it is. He was only
imagining to himself what it might be, or what he would wish it to be.
If he will look into Alford or Stanley, or into any other of the good
expositors, and especially, if he will but glance at the context itself, he
will at once see that he has been labouring under an entire misappre
hension of the writer's scope. He has, we suspect, been verifying his
own remark, and " culling a separate sentence to serve a purpose,"
instead of "intelligently and comprehensively studying the leading
train of thought." And we are confirmed in our suspicion, when, in
addition to his other observations, he makes the following : — " The
bearing of Christ's death on the unregenerate is not within the scope of
his reasoning ; and to regard him as giving a decision on that point,
instead of urging home its bearing upon believers, is to introduce an
element altogether heterogeneous." ¦ Indeed ! And yet both in the
context which lies immediately before and in that which comes after, —
the apostle makes indisputable reference to his labours among the
unregenerate. "We labour, that whether present or absent, we may
be accepted of him: — for we must all appear before the judgment-seat
of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body,
whether it be good or bad : — knowing therefore the terror of the Lord
we persuade men : — whether we be beside ourselves (in our devotion to
the gospel work), it is to God." Surely there is reference here to the

Universality of the Atonement. 15
unregenerate, as objects of the apostle's labours. And in the succeed
ing context he continues to speak of " the ministry of reconciliation
which had been given to him ; to wit that God was in Christ reconcil
ing the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."
And he adds, " Now then we are ambassadors for Ghrist, as though
God did beseech (men) by ns, we pray (them) in Christ's stead, Be ye
reconciled to God. ; for he hath made him to be sin for us-who knew
no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in him."
(vs. 18-21.) We are really astonished that Dr. Candlish could suppose
that " the bearing of Christ's death on the unregenerate is not within
the scope of the apostle's reasoning."
As to the 14th and 15th verses themselves, they are evidently
intended to explain the grand constraining motive which impelled the
apostle to his intensely zealous labours on behalf of sinners. " For it is the
"love of Christ which constraineth us to these labours, although there
" be many who think that we are beside ourselves. It is the love of
"Christ; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were
"all dead, (or, then all died.) We judge, when we consider the
'-' fact that one died for all, that all died and are dead because
" of trespasses and sins; they are dead in law. All are in a doleful
" plight, and in imminent danger of- everlasting misery. And we
"farther judge that he died for all, that they (of the all) who
"live, who are quickened through Christ and made alive unto
" God, should hot henceforth live unto themselves, consulting their own
" carnal ease, but unto him who died for them and rose again, — whose
"love therefore should constrain them to spend and be spent in
" winning souls."
Such seems to be the meaning of the apostle's solemn declaration.
We agree with Dr. Candlish that the expression "then were all dead,"
would be more literally rendered, " then all died." But there is no
evidence whatever that they died "in Christ." The " then " is logi
cal, not temporal. And the logical sequence from the fact that Christ
suffered death for all, is the conclusion that all, sometime or other,
incurred death for themselves by their own trespasses and sins. All died
by sin, and are "dead in sins." (Eph. ii. 5.) Just as we judge that
if Christ was made sin for all, then all sinned (though not in Christ) ;
so we infer that if Christ had. to enter into a state of death for all, all
were in a state of death. But when the apostle adds that " one died
for all, that they who live (or, that the living) should not henceforth
live to themselves," the expression " the living," is evidently partitive.
It denotes only a part or section of the " all " who sometime or other
died. While all are dead in trespasses and sins, they only who believe
in Christ are quickened, and made alive unto God in newness of life.
And thus, as the apostle selects " them who live " from among those
who had died, and yet assumes and asserts that Christ died for all who
died, it is manifest that the death of Christ was endured for multitudes
of others besides those who ultimately " live." The universalities of
the passage, and its partitive expression "they who live," cannot be
rationally accounted for, except on the hypothesis of an unlimited
atonement.

16 Vindication of the
De. Candlish's Ceiti.qtj:e on 1 Tim. ii. 1-6.
1 Tim. ii. 1-6 is undoubtedly one of the main pillars in the temple
of the truth regarding the universality of the atonement. The passage
will be familiar to many of our readers, but we must quote it at
length : —
"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giv
ing of thanks, he made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in authority ; that
we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men to be 6aved,
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one media
tor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all,
to be testified in due time."
Even Dr. Candlish cannot but see that there is a universality asserted
in this passage. But he contends that it is " plainly a universality of
classes, conditions, and characters of men, not of individuals." He
says : —
" The apostle is exhorting that prayer be made for all men, kings and rulers as well
as subjects. This was a very necessary specification at a time when those in author
ity, being too often oppressors, might seem to have little claim on Christians for such
kindness. Notwithstanding that consideration, the apostle would have intercession
offered for kings and rulers ; and, in short, for men of all ranks, and all situations and
circumstances m the world. It is to enforce this universality of intercessory prayer,
in opposition to the idea of excluding or omitting any set of men, even the most un
deserving, that he introduces as an argument, first, the universality of the Father's
love, who has no respect of persons, but ' will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth' (ver. 4) ; and, secondly, the universality of the Son's
mediation, which has regard to men, as such, without excepting any portion of the
race 4 for -he -' gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time' (ver. 6.)"
(pp. 64, 65.)
We cannot understand Dr. Candlish. The Son's mediation, he says,
" has regard to men, as such, without excepting any portion of the
race." And yet the great aim of his book is to prove that it is " im
possible that any, for whom Christ can be said, in any sense, to have
died on the cross, should, after all, perish for ever." (p. 93.) " In the
strict and proper sense, Christ was really, truly, and personally, a sub
stitute in the room of the elect, and in the room of the elect only."
(p. 38.) Such is the oft -reiterated doctrine of Dr. Candlish. It is
given in line upon line ; and not only " here a little, and there a little,"
but here very much, and there very much. And yet he actually avers, in
the passage we have quoted, that Christ's mediation " has regard to men
as such, without excepting any portion of the race." "To men, as
such " ! Has it relation to every one who is really a man ? " Without
excepting any portion of the race " ! Without even excepting the
great non-elect portion ? Without even excepting the portion who are
already finally lost ? We can scarcely credit our eyes. And yet the
palpable contradiction is palpably recorded in the palpable volume of
his book !
But apart from this contradiction, why does the doctor hurry so
rapidly past 1 Tim. ii. 1-6? Is he afraid to stand still and stir the
passage ? Is he fearful for the consequences, if he should pause and
ponder it.? Or has he really nothing to say concerning it, but what
will amount to a contradiction of the entire remainder of his book ?

Universality of the Atonement. 17
He says that " the apostle is exhorting that prayer be made for all
men, kings and rulers as well as subjects." He says truly. What
then ? Was prayer to be made in ancient times, and is it still to be
made, for kings and rulers in the abstract ? Or was it to be made, and
is it still to be made, for concrete kings and rulers, — the kings and
rulers actually in authority ? "Does Dr. Candlish hesitate ? We can
not suppose it. The apostle says " I exhort that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and
for all who are in authority." Mark the words " who are." Nero
was in authority when the apostle wrote. Was prayer to be made for
him ? Who can doubt it ? Is prayer to be made by the church in all
ages for all who are concretely and actually in authority ? Who can
doubt it ? Surely not Dr. Candlish. What then ? Does not the
apostle give a reason why prayer is to be made, not only in general for
all men, but also in particular for kings and for all who are actually in
authority? He does. What is his reason ? Let us see it. "For this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
What then ? Why this — we must ascertain who are the " all men"
whom " God will have to be saved." Are they merely all classes of men
in the abstract? Or are they all classes in the. concrete, and as they are
actually existing at the time when prayer is to be offered ? For example,
there was a class of " all that were in authority," who were in con
crete existence at the time that Timothy received the apostle's exhor
tation. Did God wish that particular concrete class to be saved ? Did
God wish Nero, and all the actual rulers who were under him, to be
saved? If he did, is it not all in all classes whom God wills to be
saved, and for whom prayer is to be made ? And are not all in all classes
just " a universality of individuals " ? If he did not, does not the su
perstructure of prayer overlap the foundation on which it is divinely
erected ? And would not, in fact, the inspired exhortation amount to
this — Be ye benevolent toward all men, for God is benevolent toward
some? But the apostle is not contented to assert that " God will have all
men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," he
adduces evidence of the truth of his assertion. For he adds, — " For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." His reasoning cul
minates in the fact that " Christ gave himself a ransom for all." This
fact he assumes. Thence he deduces that " God will have all men to
be saved." And from this will of God in reference to the salvation of
all men, he deduces that prayers and intercessions should be offered up
for all. If it should be the case then that prayers and intercessions are
to be presented for all the concrete individuals who are in all classes ;
and if it also be the case that prayers and intercessions should have
such a universal sweep because God will have all in all classes to be
saved ; must it not likewise be the case that Christ gave himself a ransom
for all in all classes — for a universality of individuals ? If not,_ must
not the apostle's argument be an inverted pyramid? Must it not
amount to this — " God wishes all in all classes to be saved, for he sent
his son into the world to. save some" ? How comes it to pass that Dr.

18 Vindication of the
Candlish is so easily satisfied that " the universality asserted is plainly
a universality of classes, conditions, and characters of men, not of in
dividuals " ? Why does he not, in reference to a proof-text so very vital,
carry out his own rule, and " study comprehensively the leading train
of thought, with especial reference to the scope and tenor of the reason
ing" ? De. Candlish's CEiTiar/E on Tit. ii. 11-13.
Tit. ii. 11-13 is by no means so important a proof-passage as 1 Tim.
ii. 1-6. But Dr. Candlish lingers longer around it. The passage is
given in full in the centre of the following argument : —
" The motive to obedience is one and the same (to all classes of believers) — ' the
appearing of the grace of God.' For that grace ' bringeth salvation to all men ' alike
— however in age, sex, office, or statiou, they may differ from one another. And it
teaches and binds them all alike to a sober, righteous, and godly life, in the hope of
the glorious appearing of Him whose saving grace has appeared already ; — ' For the
grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared ; teaching us that,
denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly,
in this present world ; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ' (ver. 11-13). Such is the argument. The
very force and beauty of it as an appeal to the intermediate place, or middle stage,
which all believers in common occupy, between the two ' appearings,' the gracious and
the glorious, must be admitted to turn upon these being, as to extent, commensurate.
The universality, therefore, of the former, or gracious appearing, must he measured by
that of the latter, or glorious appearing : as to which there can be no room for ques
tion, since it is ' unto them that look for him that he is to appear the second time,
without sin, unto salvation ' (Heb. ix. 28.)" — p. 66.
The doctor's concluding statement fakes us by surprise. He seems to
think that the latter and glorious appearing of our Lord is to have ex
clusive reference to the believing. He says that " there is no room for
question" as to the matter, since it is " unto them that look for him
that he is to appear the second time without sin, unto salvation." One
would suppose, if he had not actually quoted the inspired words in full,
that he had lost sight of the two concluding terms "unto salvation."
Christ shall be seen indeed "unto salvation" by those only who look
for, and who love, his appearing. But beyond all doubt, if Scripture
authority is to suffice for our beliefs, he shall appear, and that most
gloriously, unto all. Jesus himself expressly says that "all the tribes
of the earth shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven,
with power and great glory." (Matt.-xxiv. 30.) " Every eye shall see
him." (Rev. i. 7.) Dr. Owen, commenting on the very passage quoted
by Dr. Candlish judiciously remarks : —
" To whom shall lie thus appear t Of whom shall he bo thus seen ? To them that
look for him. But the Scripture is plain and express in other places, that he shall
appear unto all; shall be seen of all, even of his enemies, Eev. i. 7. And the work
that he hath to do at his appearing, requires that so it Bhould be. For he comes to
judge the world in general ; and in particular to plead with ungodly men about their un
godly deeds and speeches, Judo 15. So therefore must and shall it be. His second
illustrious appearance shall fill the whole world with the "beams of it : the whole
rational creation of God shall see and behold' him. But the apostle treats of his ap
pearance here with respect unto the salvation of those unto whom he doth appear.
Se shall appear unto salvation." (Exposition, in loo.)
It is in vain to try to maintain any other opinion on this matter

Universality of the Atonement. 19
than that expressed by Dr. Owen. The notion hazarded by Dr.
Candlish, is far too extreme limitarianism. It is altogether unscriptural,.
and antiscriptural. But what then becomes of his argument ? It is
based on the idea that the two appearings are commensurate. " The
very force and beauty " of the apostle's reasoning, he says, " as an
appeal to the intermediate place, or middle stage, which all believers in
common occupy, between the two appearings, the gracious and the
glorious, must be admitted to turn upon these being, as to extent, com
mensurate." "Must" it be the case? If it "must," then, as it is,
beyond all rational controversy, certain that the glorious appearing is to
be unto all without distinction or exception, it " must be the case "
that the gracious appearing was also for all. Will Dr. Candlish admit
it? If he will not, is he not assuming in his arguments the part
and port of those who, when their own logic is turned against them,
are ready to turn about and exclaim, The case being altered, that alters
the case ?
We may say farther in reference to this passage in Tit. ii. 11-13,
that we agree with Dr. Candlish in accepting the marginal reading,
"the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared."
And when he allows that this grace " bringeth salvation to all men
alike, however in age, sex, office, or station, they may differ from one
another," he simply borrows the interpretation which we ourselves
would give of the divine asseveration. He renounces for the moment
his limitarianism, and, instead of thinking of abstract classes, he con
centrates his attention upon the concrete individuals composing the
classes. When he adds that the grace which bringeth salvation to all,
"teaches and binds them all alike to a sober, righteous, and godly
life," he again gives utterance, although most inconsistently, to our uni
versality. For it cannot be abstract classes which are thus bound. It
must be the concrete individuals who compose the classes. But
assuredly, if " all alike " of the individuals are bound by the grace of
God" to a sober, righteous, and godly life," the grace must really
have reference to them all. It must be grace to them " all .alike."
And" consequently the atonement, in which it is embodied, must be for
all. Must it not ?
De. Candlish's Critique on 1 John ii. 1, 2.
1 John ii. 1, 2 must ever be regarded as one of the great foundation-
stones of the doctrine of the universality of the atonement. The
apostle's words are these : —
" My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any
man sin,- we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous : And he
is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world."
Dr. Candlish, of course, could not, by an act of preterition, ignore
such a passage. And he therefore does his best to account for the
concluding clause. He says : —
" What, therefore, can the passing introduction of this seemingly extraneous refer
ence to others imply ? What, but that the apostle, with his truly catholic love to all
brethren in Christ, calls to mind that others, besides himself and those to whom he

20 Vindication of the
writes, may be in the same sad case for which he has been making provision ? If any
of us sin, we have an advocate with the Father — we know where to find relief— we
know how we may be restored, and have our backslidings healed. But this is too
good news to be kept to ourselves. Many, too many, of the Lord's people, in all
successive, ages, may and must need the same comfort and revival. For the admoni
tion, therefore, of all, .everywhere, and to the end of time, who may be situated as we
— says the apostle of himself, his fellow apostles, and his little children, all alike,— as
we, some of us, or all of us, may be situated — overtaken, that is, in a fault, fallen from
their first love, lapsed into sin — the universal efficacy of this remedy is to be asserted,
as available, in such circumstances, not for us only, out for all.
" Who does not see that, when the text is thus interpreted according to its connec
tion, it cannot possibly be any general or universal reference of the atonement to all
mankind, whether believers or not, that is meant? The whole propriety, sense, and
force of the passage are gone, and all its sanctifying and comforting unction is evap
orated, if it beheld to denote anything whatever beyond that special efficacy of Christ's
blood and intercession which cleanses the believer's conscience anew from the defile
ment of backsliding, and delivers his heart afresh from the baseness and bondage of
corruption." (pp. 69-71.)
This is rather strong. But happily it is merely strong assertion.
And with all its strength, it does not even attempt to account for the
vastitude of the natural import of the expression " the whole world."
Hthat expression could really be so dwarfed as to embrace only "all
brethren in Christ," then what will Dr. Candlish, we Would ask, make
of the apostle's statement in the only other passage in which the same
expression is found. What will he make of chap. v. 19, — "We know
that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Will he,
in that case too, suppose that the apostle refers to believers only ? Can
he suppose that the apostle means, that while he himself and those to
whom he was writing were " of God," all their brethren in Christ else
where were lying in wickedness ? The supposition is too preposterous
to be entertained. But if it be, why interpret the phrase in the two
passages by a rule of contraries ? Why interpret it in the one passage
as meaning " all the good," and in the other as denoting " all the
bad"? So far from it appearing to us to be the case that the ' ' whole propriety,
sense, and force of the passage are gone, and all its sanctifying and
comforting unction evaporated, if it be held to denote anything beyond
that special efficacy of Christ's blood and intercession which cleanses
the believer's conscience anew from the defilement of backsliding ; " we
really think that the apostle had a more "catholic love" than what
was confined to the little company of his " brethren in Christ ; " and
that it highly became him, when thinking of the propitiatory bearing
of Christ's .work on believers, to cast a thought beyond that limited
circle, and to throw out streamingly for the relief of his own heart, and
for the quickening of the zeal of his brethren, the great idea of the
equal propitiatory bearing of the work of Christ on the million-masses
of the yet ungathered and unsaved. It is ever well when the interests
of believers are not isolated and imprisoned within themselves. It is
ever well when the weal of the world presses in upon the souls of those
who are chosen out of the world. It is ever well when Christians
give vent to the out-gushings of impartial and universal love.

Universality of the A tonement. 2 1

Dr. Candlish's Cbitiqtje on 2 Pet. n. 1.
The apostle Peter says, in the 1st verse of the second chapter of his
second epistle, — " But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring
in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and
bring upon themselves swift destruction." It is a melancholy predic
tion; and yet it bears a momentously important relation to the contro
versy on the extent of the atonement. Dr. Candlish could not well
overlook it ; and blow on it as he may, he will never be able to ex
tinguish its light. He says that it brings " out, in stern relief, on a
background of bright profession and promise, the black guilt of apostacy,
and of the bringing in of damnable heresies." In this remark he is ob
viously correct. Only it should be noticed that the apostacy, with
which the false teachers are charged, is not apostacy from mere and
empty though " bright" profession. It is apostacy from actual posses
sion. ' For the apostle subsequently represents them as " having escaped
the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ.'' (v. 20.) Dr. Candush adds, —
" The object of the Spirit is to paint, as with a lightning-flash across the thunder
cloud, the perilous position of the individuals who are to be warned ; to startle them
with a vivid insight into the view which God is entitled to take, and in fact cannot
but take, of their aggravated sin ; to fill them with salutary alarm, by opening their
eyes to a clear foresight of the inevitable ruin which their sin, if persevered in, must
entail on them." (pp. 73, 74.)
But the doctor has entirely misapprehended, we imagine, "the ob
ject of the Spirit." So far as the inspired words inform us, " the
object of the Spirit was by no means to " warn" the false teachers of
their " perilous position," and to " startle them," and " fill them with
salutary alarm." The Spirit-inspired apostle is speaking of, but he is
not at all speaking to, the false teachers. He is speaking to his "be
loved," who had " obtained like precious faith with himself." And it is
his obvious object to put these his brethren on their guard against the
insidious devices of the "scoffers" who were to come "in the last
days." The entire second and third chapters of the Epistle are prophy
lactic. They are not a remonstrance with the apostate and corruptedi
They are an exhortation to the faithful and uncorrupted to "beware
lest they also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from
their own steadfastness." (chap. iii. 17.) It is not the case, there
fore, that We are to account for the apostle's phraseology in the verse
under discussion, on the principle, that he was " painting as with a
lightning flash across the thunder-cloud," and straining his representa
tions to the utmost, in order to " startle" the false teachers and " fill
them with salutary alarm." He was not adventuring to the very bor
ders of the exaggerated, and even benevolently overleaping the limits
of the real and the true, for the purpose of making a desperate effort to
reclaim the licentious errorists, who Were '' wells without water, and
clouds that are carried with a tempest, to whom the mist of darkness
is reserved for ever." (ii. 1 7.) No. It is not on this principle that he
represents them as " denying the Lord that bought them." It was on
C

22 Vindication of the
the principle that it was a sober matter of fact that the Lord had
bought them, although they denied him and brought upon themselves
swift destruction.
Dr. Candlish continues to say that the words of Peter, —
" Indicate, on the one hand, what true Christians, whether private members or of
fice-bearers in the Church, must always keep before them, as the inevitable issue of an
unsteadfast walk, or of false teaching, should they be seduced into either of these
snares. And they indicate also, on the other hand, in what light God must regard
their sin and danger, and in what character, considering their profession to him and
his right over them, he cannot fail to view and visit them, when he comes to judge.
Their sin must fall to be estimated, and their judgment must fall to be determined, by
the. standard of their Christian name. It is as Christians that they are to be con
sidered as sinning. It is on that footing, as reprobate and apostate Christians, that
they are to be condemned." (pp. 74, 75.)
But if it really be the case, as Dr. Candlish contends, that the Lord
did not die for the false teachers ; and if it also be the case, as he like
wise contends, that the Holy Spirit never enabled them to believe ; we
cannot see that they could be guilty and condemned as " apostate
Christians." They had never had a bona fide opportunity of possessing,
and therefore they had never, as a matter of fact, possessed, and there
fore they had never really apostatized from, Christ and Christianity.
If Chiist did not die' for them, and if they never believed on him, we
cannot undersi^nd how the righteous Judge of all the earth, who
knoweth.all things as they actually are, could aggravate their doom, by
virtually saying to them, "Te were bought by the Lord, and yet ye
denied him ; ye believed on his name, and yet ye apostatized from him."
Dr. Candlish has evidently himself felt scarcely satisfied with his
•interpretation of 2 Pet. ii. 1. And hence, in a subsequent part of his
volume, he returns to the passage, and tries by a totally different tack
to make headway against the strong apparent contrariety of its "wind
of doctrine." He says, —
" Whatever other explanation may be put upon these words, as indicating chiefly
what these criminals profess to be, and what they must in the judgment be accounted
to be, — still it is never to be forgotten that there is a very terrible, and as it were ul
timate and final sense, in which even the reprobate are declared to be within the reach
and range of the atoning work of Christ, and to be really purchased or bought by him
with a price." (p. 191.)
"All mankind, therefore, may be said to be bought by him, inasmuch as, by Mb hu
miliation, obedience, and death, he has obtained, as by purchase, a right over them
all — he has had them all placed under his power, and at his disposal. But it is for
very different purposes and ends. The reprobate are his to be judged; the elect are
his to be saved. As to the former, it is no ransom or redemption, fairly so called.
He has won them— bought them, if you will;— but it is that he may so dispose of
them as to glorify the retributive righteousness of God in their condemnation ; aggra
vated, as that condemnation must be, by their rejection of himself. This is no propi
tiation, in any proper meaning of that term. It is no offering of himself to bear their
sins — no bringing in of a perfect righteousness on their account." (pp. 193, 194.)
This is indeed " a very terrible sense " in which to understand the
apostle's words. And it suggests some unpleasant, and indeed
terrible, ideas about the cruelty of certain tender mercies. The only
apology which we can think of for the doctor's excogitation of such a
terrible interpretation, is that he must have felt himself terribly
perplexed with the apparent intractability of ih.e passage.
God, according to the dootor's former representation, though knowing

Universality of the Atonement. 23
that the false teachers never were Christians, will nevertheless condemn
them " as apostate Christians " : and though knowing that Christ never
died for them, is yet entitled to say to them, "It is a dreadful aggrava
tion of your other sins that ye denied the Lord who bought you." The
passage gives, says the doctor, " a vivid insight into the view which
God is entitled to take, and in fact cannot but take, of their aggravated
sin." But now the doctor ekes out his interpretation by this very
terrible addition: — he supposes that the actual relation of " the Lord"
to the false teachers is such, that, if God were fully and openly to declare
it to them, he would say something to the following effect : — " But
"indeed, though, as your Judge, I have said that the Lord bought you,
" do not suppose that he died for you ; because for whomsoever he died
" at all, for them he died efficaciously and effectually (p. 86), and it is
" impossible that they should perish (p. 93). The Lord did not give
" himself a ransom for your salvation. No. But, while purchasing the
" elect for salvation, he yet, without dying for you, somehow purchased
" you for damnation. Yes. He desired, to entitle himself to the preroga-
" tive of adjudging you to damnation ; and hence the relation of his aton-
" ing work to you, though he did not die for you. Seeing therefore that
" he did purchase you for this inevitable and terrible end, it is a high
" and awful aggravation of your sin that you did not believe on him ; and
" yours must be, for this very unbelief, a far sorer punishment than if he
" had never bought you. Depart, ye cursed." This is indeed a very
terrible sense of the passage. And it gives a very terrible view, not
only of the mercy, but even of the very justice, of God.
One would have thought that Dr. Candlish would have waited — 0
how long ! — at least till all tendencies to infidelity were extinguished
in our country, before he hazarded such a terrible theory of the divine
procedure. One might have indeed supposed that he would even
rather have welcomed the idea of a universal propitiation, than have
thrown open his arms to the hypothesis of a purchased damnation.
Is it probable, we could have supposed him to ask, that our Lord, —
considered as a man, — would desire to purchase the non- elect for damna
tion ? Nay. For, as a man, he would love all his neighbours as he
loved himself.
Is it probable then, that, considered as a mediator, he would desire
to make the terrible purchase ? Nay. For, as mediator, he was
engaged in a mission of mercy, and not of terrible wrath.
Is it probable then, that, considered as God, he would desire to
make the purchase ? Nay. For, as God, he had, without any new
purchase, the most ample right to condemn the transgressors of his law.
And if, in the face of all imaginable probabilities, as well as in the
absence of all explicit testimonies, it should still be suggested to Dr.
Candlish that his Lord made a terrible purchase of the non-elect for
damnation, we should have supposed that it would have occurred to
him to ask, What then must have been the price which was paid by fhe
Lord for this purchase ? It must have been something or nothing.
Could it be nothing ? No. For then the transaction would have been
a mere sham-purchase. But if it was something, could it be anything
else than his obedience until death — his holy sacrificial blood ? If it
could, let the alternative be specified. If it could not, then are we not

24 Vindication of the
shut' up, by the law of contraries, to think of blasphemies when we
read such words as the following: — "Te are bought with a price;
therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are
God's " ? We deeply regret that Dr. Candlish should have given birth,
we say not to such a chimera, but to such a terrible gorgon, of a doctrine.
Heb. x. 26-29.
Dr. Candlish classes with 2 Pet. ii. 1, an exceedingly solemn pas
sage in Heb. x. 26-29. It runs thus: —
" For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judg
ment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised
Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses : of how much sorer pun*
ishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the
Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? "
As the doctor simply couples this passage with 2 Pet. ii. 1, as being
homogeneous in principle, and advances no special criticism bearing
upon its distinctive individuality, we may hold it as now standing
liberated from his grasp. It is obvious that it is constructed on the
assumption that true believers may fail' to persevere unto the end.
They who " have received the knowledge of the truth" may " sin wil
fully " and apostatizingly. They may bring themselves into a state in
which there is nothing before them " but a certain fearful looking-for
of judgment." Some who have been " sanctified "with the blood of the
covenant" may become so perverted and infatuated as to " tread under
foot the Son of God" and " do despite unto the Spirit of grace." But
if all this be possible, it must be true that the blood of Christ has been
shed for others besides' the ultimately saved. For it is inconceivable
that the inspired writers should deal in chimeras and mere hobgoblins of
supposition. Rom. xiv. 15 ; and 1 Coe. viii. 11.
These are twin passages. The formes runs thus ; — " But if thy
brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.
Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." The latter
runs as follows : — " And through .thy knowledge shall the weak brother
perish, for whom Christ died." Dr.' Candlish thus judiciously comments
on them : —
" They are warnings to those who, on the strength of their own clearer light aud
more robust conscience, may be tempted to despise or offend the weaker members of
the Church. Evidently, therefore, these texts point out the light in which the parties
addressed are to regard those whom they are in danger of vexing or misleading. They
are to regard them as brethren ; weak, perhaps, but still brethren ; interested in the
same Saviour with themselves, but yet, notwithstanding that, not so secure as to be
beyond the reaoh of serious and fatal injury, at the hands of their fellow-Christians."
(p. 75.) •
This is thoroughly judicious : but it is ploughing with a stolen heifer.
For if the robuster brethren are to regard the weaker members of the
church as " interested in the Saviour," how is it possible that they

Universality of the Atonement. 25
could, in consistency with the doctor's theory, also regard them as
" not so secure as to be beyond the reach of serious and fatal injury"?
According to the doctor's theory, every one for whom Christ died will
infallibly be saved. " They," he says, " for whom Christ died can
not perish : and as it is his dying for them that makes their perishing
an impossibility, so it is their being enabled to apprehend his dying for
them, that gives them personal assurance of their perishing being an
impossibility." (p. 89.) If then the robuster brethren are to regard the
weaker members as "interested in the same Saviour with themselves,"
must they not, on that very account, if they be consistent, regard them
as " so secure as to be beyond the reach of serious and fatal injury" ?
Why does the doctor, when interpreting Rom. xiv. 1 5 and 1 Cor. viii,
11, refuse to dance, in his doctrine, to the sound of his own pipe ?
" So far as your conduct toward them is concerned, you are to treat them, even as
you are to treat yourselves, with all that delicacy and tenderness which the most
precarious and uncertain tenure of grace might prompt." (p. 79.)
But how, we ask, can there be, on the doctor's hypothesis, anything
like a " precarious and uncertain tenor of grace" ? Can that which the
decrees of God have fixed, and which the blood of Jesus has sealed, and
which the work of the Spirit has efficaciously and unfrustrably applied,
be " precarious and uncertain " ? Why will the doctor persist in plough
ing with a stolen heifer ?

Dr. Candlish's Geneeal Remark on 2 Pet. n. 1 ; Heb. x. 26-29 j
Rom. xrv. 15 ; 1 Coe. vni. 11.
" It is remarkable," says Dr. Candlish, " that in all these passages,
the strong and awful appeals made turn on the interest which God has
in the parties referred to, rather than on the interest which they have
in him. They assert God's prerogative, rather than their privilege."
(p. 72.) But we rather think that it is remarkable that, in all of the
passages quoted, the very opposite is the case. Christ " bought" the
false teachers. That suggests rather their privilege than God's prero
gative. The apostates are " sanctified with the blood of the covenant."
That too suggests rather their privilege than God's prerogative.
" Christ died for the weak brothers." That too is rather a declaration
of their privilege, than an assertion of God's prerogative.
" WTut gives to these texts," adds the doctor, " their peculiar point,
emphasis, and solemnity, is not the assertion as a matter of fact (de
facto), on the part of the persons referred to, of the tie, or the rela
tionship, or the obligation indicated by the expressions used ; but
rather the assumption of it as a matter of right (dejure), on the part
of God." (p. 72.) But the contrary is, beyond aU rational contro
versy, the reality. For it is asserted, as a matter of fact, that Christ
bought the false teachers, and died for the weak brethren. And if we
may be sure of anything, we may be assured of this, — that God will
never claim a right to impose obligation,, or to adjudge retribution, on
the assumption of unrealities as realities. Will he ? " I am ashamed
unfeignedly," says Richard Baxter, looking back to the period when he
occupied Dr. Candlish's position,, "to remember the time, when I took

26 Vindication of the
up with this interpretation, and had the face to maintain it." ( Universal
Redemption, p. 326.) The interpretation is really so dishonouring to
God, that it is well that the great Puritan did inward penance for
having for a season patronised it.
A Cltjstee op Texts — John i. 29 ; xii. 32 ; iv. 42 ; 1 John iv. 14 ;
John hi. 16.
Dr. Candlish classes together the following alleged proof- texts for the
universality of the work of Christ : — " Behold the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29) : " I, if I be lifted up
from the earth, will draw all men unto me " (John xii. 32) : " This is
indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world " (John iv. 42) : " The
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" (1 John iv. 14) :
" God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." (John iii. 16.)
He is liberal concerning this cluster. He will not avail himself, as
he might, of a principle laid down by the late Moses Stuart of
Andover, viz. — that the word " world" and the expression " all men"
simply extend the circle of reference beyond the people of the Jews to
the Gentiles, (pp. 55, 56, 77.) Moses Stuart thought that the passages,
When " strictly scanned," did not "decide directly against the views of
those who advocate what is called a particular redemption." (Commen
tary on Hebrews, chap. ii. 9.) We think, however, that Moses Stuart
was mistaken in this notion, as well as in many more of his opinions.
And indeed, if the notion had been correct, we might have expected to
read in the Bible that God has not only loved, but also elected, " the
whole world," and that he actually pardons and justifies and sanctifies
and glorifies " all men." It was judicious, then, in Dr. Candlish to
put his bark on a different tack. He "cannot but think and feel"
that the passages " touch upon a somewhat different topic."
" They seem to me to have respect, not to the design and efficacy of the atonement,
in its accomplishment and application ; nor even, strictly speaking, to its sufficiency ;
but solely to the discovery which, as a historical transaction, or fact in providence, it'
is fitted to make of the Divine character generally, and especially of the Divine com
passion and benevoleuce. In that aspect, or point of view, they are to be regarded as
giving intimation of the widest possible universality." (p. 78.)
Dr. Candlish thinks then, it seems, that the word " world " and the
expression " all men " in the passages quoted, " give intimation of the
widest possible universality." The word "world" does not mean
" elect world." It does not mean simply " Gentiles as well as Jews."
It denotes something " of the widest possible universality."
This looks well. Is the doctor at length about to abandon or to
modify his favourite idea of the exclusive reference of the work of pro
pitiation to the elect ? Does he now admit that the Lamb of God oore
the sin of the whole world of mankind, and took it away, so far as it is
an insurmountable barrier between the millions of the human race and
everlasting life ? Does he now see that Jesus was lifted up from the
earth in behalf of all mankind, and that he is at this moment exerting
an influence on all which, if it were not wilfully resisted, would

Universality of the Atonement. 27
infallibly issue in the salvation of all? Does he now think that Christ
is the Saviour of the world, in the sense of having done what is
sufficient for the salvation of all in the world ? And does he think that
God has so really loved the whole human world as to have given his
only begotten son to bear the Bins of all, in order that whosoever
believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life? We
would sincerely and greatly rejoice if such a metamorphosis of thought
had really taken place ; and if we could attribute to it the averment
that the passages in question "give intimation of the widest possible
universality." But if one should allow oneself to ascend into such a hope, a speedy
disappointment would be the result. The hope and the reality are
wide, as the two poles, asunder. Dr. Candlish means no such ampli
tude of the actual love of God and work of Christ, when he speaks of
" the widest possible universality." Not at all. He does not think
that the passages have any reference to the extent of the design of the
atonement, or to the extent of its intrinsic sufficiency. By no means.
In using his open-armed expression, he only refers to a universality of
fitness in the atonement to discover the divine character. The passages,
he says, " have respect solely to the discovery which, as a historical
transaction, or fact in providence, the atonement is fitted to make of
the divine character generally, and. especially of the divine compassion
and benevolence." It is in this one aspect that " they are to be
regarded as giving intimation of the widest possible universality."
Tes. Such is the little mouse, which the large mountain, after all its
labour, brings forth !
But this universality, as accorded to the passages, is not only a poor
little mouse of a thing. It is less still. It is only a grandiloquent
name for really nothing at all. And the admission of it, although
apparently granting something as regards the import of the passages,
was but a blind to veil from the doctor's own view, the fact that he has
left no intelligible meaning to be affixed to the word " world" and the
expression " all men." For, as it is only a universality of "fitness to
discover," a universality of "exhibition" and "proclamation" (pp. 77,
78), which he allows; when we try to attach to the particular
passages this particular kind of universality, it dilates, and expands,
and ratifies, and ultimately dissolves either into impalpability or into
absolute nonentity. Look at the passages in detail.
§ 1. John i. 29. — " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the
6in of the world." The admiring and adoring Baptist did not say,
"Behold, O world, the Lamb of God which taketh away sin!" If
this had been what he had said, there might have been a universality
of " proclamation ; " and the universality of proclamation might have
been regarded as based on a universality of "exhibition" and of
" fitness to discover." But the universality actually referred to is very
different. It was the sin of the universal world which the Lamb of
- God was actually bearing, and taking out of the way.
§ 2. John xii. 32. — " I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
all men unto me." The Saviour did not say, " 0, all men everywhere,

28 '¦ Vindication of the
look unto me as lifted up from the earth, and lifted up from the earth
for the purpose of drawing sinners to myself." If he had said this, there
would have been a universality of proclamation. And that universality
might be considered as grounded on a mere intrinsic universality of
exhibition. But the universality asserted is totally different. It is
the actual concrete universality of mankind. On this actual concrete
universality of mankind the Saviour promised to shed a benignantly
attractive influence, when once he should complete in their behalf
his atoning work.
§ 3. John iv. 42. — " This is indeed the Saviour of the world " . 1 John
iv. 14 — " The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."
The Samaritans did not say — " Let us go and proclaim to all the world
that this is the Christ, the Saviour." And the beloved disciple does
not assert that " the Father has revealed to the whole world that he
has sent his Son to be the Saviour." No. It is not a universality of
proclamation, or of exhibition, which is asserted. It is a totally different
universality. It is a universality of the very thing which is needed by
the whole world for salvation.
§ 4. John iii. 16. — " God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish,
but have everlasting life." Dr. Candlish says in reference to this

" I confess I am but little inclined to qualify or explain away the term ' world,' as
here employed. I rather rejoice in this text, as asserting that the gospel has a gracious
aspect, to the world, or to mankind as such. ' God so loved the world ' — that is, the
world of mankind, in opposition or contradistinction to angels ; he so loved mankind
as such, without reference to elect or non-elect, that ' helgave his only-begotten Son.'
The giving of his Son was, and is, a display of good-will towards men, — towards men
as such, — towards the human race." (pp. 78, 79.)
This is encouraging again. For it seems to assert some other kind
of universality than merely that of proclamation and exhibition and
fitness to reveal. An actual love " to the world of mankind " seems to
•be admitted. And he speaks of " a display of good-will towards men,
towards men as such, towards the human race."
But Dr. Candlish, in using such expressions, is again ploughing with
his stolen heifer. He has no right, on the principles of his own
theology, to employ them. For he immediately proceeds to say : —
" Let it be observed,- however, that even here nothing is said about God giving his
Son for all. On the contrary, the very terms in which the gift of his Son is described
imply a limitation of it to them that believe. On that limitation, indeed, depends the
fulness of the blessing conveyed by it. The design of Christ's death is, in fact, in ex
press terms, and very pointedly, restricted to them that believe,— to ' whosoever be
lieveth in him.' " (p. 79.)
The love which God bears towards men as men is thus shorn of its glory.
It is not such love as prompts spontaneously to the gift of his Son for
men as men. Ah no. The love therefore which God cherished toward
the world is not such as led him to make provision for the practicable
salvation of the world. Ah no ;— if Dr. Candlish's theology be divine.
Dr. Candlish recognises apparently only one design in Christ's death,
though he does not utter a sufficiently certain sound in announcing it.

Universality of the Atonement. 29
He says, — " The design of Christ's death is restricted to them that
believe." But he Bhould rather have said that " the design of Christ's
death is restricted to the elect." For he really holds that faith is one
of the essential elements in the salvation which it was the design of
God to impart to his elect. So that our Saviour's glorious, gospel, if
cast into the mould of Dr. Candlish's theology, would turn out thus —
" God so loved the whole world, that he gave, for the exclusive benefit
of his elect, his only begotten Son, in order that their faith and
everlasting life might be secured to them, and to them alone."
Dr. Candlish's CBniQirE on Heb. ii. 9.
It is said in Hebrews ii. 9, that Jesus was " made a little lower than
the angels, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every
man." The statement is gloriously explicit : and it seems to be em
phatically in favour of the doctrine of a universal atonement. But Dr.
Candlish says : —
" Now, as to this text, one thing, at least, is very clear. The apostle's train of
reasoning in the passage in which it occurs has no reference whatever to the question
of the extent of Christ's work, but only to the depth of that humiliation on his part
which it implied, and the height of glory for which it prepared the way. In other
portions of this very chapter Paul distinctly limits to the elect the whole of 'our Lord's
mediatorial character, office, and ministry ; as when he is spoken of as standing in the
relation of ' captain of their salvation ' to the ' many sons ' whom he is ' bringing to
glory ' (ver. 10) ; and when he is represented as discharging a brother's office, in hia
incarnation, suffering, and death, and by his sympathy and saving help, to the
' children,' the little ones, ' whom God has given him ' to be ' his brethren ' (ver.
13-17)."— p. 81.
" It is quite manifest that the number of those for whom he is to taste death is an
element altogether irrelevant to the scope of the apostle's discourse. It is their nature
alone that it is in point and to the purpose to notice. Any reference to the uni
versality of the atonement would, therefore, be here entirely out of place." (pp. 82,
83.) We take a very different view of the matter. And a reference to the
¦universality of the atonement seems to us to be eminently, as regards
the passage before us, the right thing in the right place. It is not
the case that the train of reasoning in the paragraph has reference
" only to the depth of that humiliation on Christ's part which his work
implied, and the height of glory for which it prepared the way." Dr.
Candlish would require, we imagine, to devote himself to a still more "in
telligent and comprehensive study of the leading train of thought." (p.
52.) The inspired writer, after having exhibited, in the first chapter
of the Epistle, the exaltation of Christ above angels, proceeds in the
second to apply his subject to a practical end : —
" Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the thingB which we have
heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels
was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of
reward : how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began
to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." (Heb.
ii. 1-3.) In such practical remarks, it is evident that the inspired writer had
no reference to an unconditionally elected number. He had not in his
mind the state of such as are infallibly secured against the possibility
of "neglecting so great salvation," by the threefold cord of God's absolute

30 Vindication of the
decree, the unconditional merit of Christ's work, and the irresistible
grace of the Holy Spirit. His mind, for the time, seemed to spread itself
out over all to whom the great salvation is brought nigh. He proceeds
to say in the 5th verse, — " For unto the angels hath he not put in' sub
jection the world to come, whereof we speak." His expanding mind
is now thinking of "the world" — "the world to come" — "the
world as it is to be" — the world as it shall be when our earth shall have
been transformed into a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The new order of things, which is to culminate in this ecumenical
glory, is under the presidency, not of angels, but of Jesus. The idea of
Jesus is thus insensibly linked to the idea of the world at large. The
inspired writer proceeds to say in the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses : —
" But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of
him ? or the son of man, that thou visitest him ? Thou madest him a little lowerthau
the angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the
works of thy hands : Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in
that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.
But now we see not yet all things put under him."
The world of men, as it is to be, will be glorious. Universal man
will be crowned with glory and honour. Every refractory element in
nature will be put in subjection to him, and will minister to his bliss.
" But now we see not yet all things put under him." No. Exalted
in many respects as man universally is, with " all sheep and oxen"
under him, " yea, and beasts of the field, and the fowl of the air, and
the fish of the sea," he is yet by no means so exalted as he might he.
Man's exaltation has been everywhere checked, and indeed altogether
imperilled by his sins. But One who has become the Archetypal Man,
in whom indeed humanity is gathered up anew, and who is .mighty and
almighty to lift up and to save the participants of his assumed nature ;
— One such has appeared in behalf of fallen humanity. Though
originally far above men, he has consented to become a little lower than
the angels, that " he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every
man" ; and now he is, on the accomplishment of his atoning work,
crowned, as the head of the new mankind, with glory and honour.
Such we conceive to be " the train of the inspired writer's reasoning."
And if such be his train of reasoning, the introduction of the universa
lity of the atonement is very far indeed from being an excrescence. It
is, on the contrary, the natural, and we might almost say, the necessary
out-growth of the preceding context. And in the remainder of the
chapter, there is by no means a restriction "to the elect, of the whole
of our Lord's mediatorial character, office, and ministry." The elect
are never once mentioned ; though believers, — as brethren, and children,
and sons, — are much referred to.
Dr. Candlish supposes that in the expression "for every one" there
is a reference to the individualizing element of the atonement. In this
we agree with him. But when he proceeds to unfold his idea, he re
sorts to his old practice of ploughing with the stolen heifer. He says :—
"The assertion is, that Christ must taste death for men; one by one,
as it were ; individually and personally ; bearing the sins of each." (p.
83.) Had he not ploughed with the stolen heifer, he would not have
said absolutely " for men," but restrictively " for elected men" or " for
the elect."

Universality of the Atonement.

De. Candlish's Appeal
to Scripture in support op the Doctelne oe an Atonement for
the elect alone.
The fourth chapter of Dr. Candlish's volume is introduced with a
kind of flourish of trumpets. It is " on the nature of the evidence in
favour of the Calvinistic doctrine." The doctor begins thus : —
" It is not my intention to enlarge on the numerous statements in the word of God
which explicitly teach, or by plain and necessary inference involve, the doctrine for
which, as Calvmists, we are concerned to contend ; which may be said to be neither
more nor less than this : that for whomsoever Christ died at all, for them he died
efficaciously and effectually. These statements must, of course, be submitted to the
test of the same general rule which has been used as a criterion in the case of those
already quoted ; and, indeed, they are all such as court and challenge the trial. For
there is this general difference between the two sets of texts — those which seem to
assert a general, and those which rather point to a restricted and limited, reference in
the atoning work of Christ— that while the former easily admit of a clear and con
sistent interpretation, such as makes them harmonize with the doctrine which, at first
sight, they might be supposed to contradict, it is altogether otherwise with the latter.
It is only by a process of distortion — by their being made to suffer violence — that
they can he so explained away as to become even neutral in the controversy. It is
remarkable, accordingly, that the opponents of the Calvinistic view rarely, if ever,
apply themselves to the task of showing what fair construction may be put, according
to their theory, on the texts usually cited against them." (pp. 86, 87.)
Indeed! We were not aware that the advocates of universal atonement
were so shy of touching the passages adduced by their opponents.
And we rather think that the doctor is drawing his general inference
from a circumscribed induction of particulars. Even old James Fraser
of Brae, who never got fairly emancipated from the fetters of Calvinism,
and who, in order to keep his orthodoxy warm, never lost an opportunity
of putting spurs into his opposition to Arminianism, — even he, in his
tentative essay on The Extent of Christ's Death, written nearly two
hundred years ago, takes up and considers at great length the passages
which Dr. Candlish adduces, and many others besides, and does his best
to dispose of them. All the great literary opponents of Calvinism, be
sides, who have 'written on the subject, and have lived to complete their
pleas, have, with more or less particularity, expounded the texts.
John Goodwin unhappily never got time to finish his Redemption Re
deemed, and hence only those passages which are supposed to bear par
ticularly on the doctrine of perseverance are discussed in that magnifi
cent fragment of his work which appeared. The middlemen even, who
stuck between Calvinism and anti- Calvinism, and were mightily per
plexed to vindicate ambidextrously their position, have elaborately con
sidered and either calvinistically or anti-calvinistically expounded all
the significant proof-texts adduced by Dr. Candlish. Take Davenant's
Dissertation for example : or look into Polhill's Chapter. And Richard
Baxter laid out " all the texts" which he found used by those who
wrote against universal atonement, and " which have any considerable
show of proof " (Univ. Red. p. 278); and he intended to review them
elaborately one by one. But death closed his career before he had time
to close his great work on the Universal Redemption of Mankind ly the

32 Vindication of the
Lord Jesus Christ. And thus his keen and needle-pointed examination
of the passages, supposed to be antagonistic, is buried without hope of
resurrection. . Dr. Candlish proceeds to say : —
•' As regards the passages to which we appeal, it may be confidently affirmed, as I
shall endeavour to show, that the assertion of a limited or restricted atonement is by
no means in them, what I have proved, I think, that the assertion of a universal
redemption would be, if admitted, in the other series of passages which I have been
considering, — namely, an excrescence upon the argument in hand, not in point or to
the purpose, but intrusive and embarrassing ; — embarassing, I of course mean, not
to the controversialist, but to the critic, in his exegesis or exposition of the particular
verses under review. On the contrary, this assertion of limitation or restriction, as
being the characteristic feature of Christ's work, is at the very heart of the passages
now to be examined. Not only is it essential to the writer's, or the speaker's,
argument or reasoning being such as the occasion requires ; it is, in fact, essential
to what he says having any meaning at all. This will appear evident, I apprehend,
as I proceed now to consider some of the principal passages in which the doctrine of
a limited atonement is asserted or implied." (p. 88.)
To the passages, then ! For, as it is our desire not so much to have
the Bible on our side, as to be on the side of the Bible, we go with
hearty good-wall to the consideration of any apparently relevant
portions of " the law and the testimony." And we cany with us the
conviction that, as the Bible, notwithstanding its marvellous com
plexity, is yet a marvellous unity, it will never be found contradicting
itself by saying that Christ did not " die for all," did not " give him
self a ransom for all," did not become " a propitiation for the sins of
the whole world," did not " taste death for every man," and did never
" buy " one of those " who deny him and bring upon themselves swift
destruction."

De. Candlish's Appeal to John x. 14, 15.
Dr. Candlish contends that "they for whom Christ died cannot
perish" (p. 89). And he supposes that John x. 14, 15, is a passage
which emphatically bears out his proposition. " I am the good
shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father : and I lay down my
life for the sheep." Dr. Candlish says : —
" That this declaration is exclusive — implying that he lays down his life for them
alone, without any reference to the world at large — is to be inferred necessarily from
the connection in which he introduces it. He is enlarging on the security which
his people have in him ; and it is as the proof of their security — the only tangible
proof which he alleges— that he brings in the appeal to the fact of his dying for
them. That, however, would be no proof at all; if others besides his sheep were
interested in his death ; or, which is the same thing, if any for whom he laid
down his life might, after all, perish." (pp. 89, 90.)
We are confounded. And we cannot help asking whether Dr.
Candlish has really looked at the connection of the verses which he
deems so important for the defenoe of his theory. He says that our
Saviour " is enlarging on the security which his people have in him ;
and it is," he adds, " as the proof of their security, that he brings in
the appeal to the fact of his dying for them." But this representation

Universality, of the Atonement. 33
of what our Saviour is "enlarging on" is, — who would have supposed
it ? — purely imaginary. It exists nowhere but in Dr. Candlish's own
fancy. The Saviour is not at all enlarging on the security, or on any
of the distinctive privileges or characteristics, of his people. He is not
at all contrasting the condition of his sheep with the condition of
surrounding goats or others. The "connection" of the passage
demonstrates thatit was a totally different subject which was occupying
the Saviour's mind, and on which he " enlarged." He was enlarging
on himself. He was avowing and portraying himself as "the good
shepherd," and he was wisely, but most pointedly, contrasting him
self with thieves and unworthy shepherds. Let the context speak
for itself : —
" All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers : but the sheep did not
hear them. I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and
shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief Cometh riot, but for to steal, and to
kill, and to destroy : I am come that they might have life, and that they might have
it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd : the good shepherd giveth his life for.
the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep"
are not, seetli the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the Wolf
catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling,
and careth not for the sheep." (vs. 8-13.)
Unlike thieves and robbers ; unlike even the hireling, " whose own
the* sheep are not, and who, when he seeth the wolf coming, leaveth
the" sheep, and fleeth"; Jesus is the good shepherd, and "giveth his
life for the sheep." " I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,
and am known of mine, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know
the Father ; and T lay down my life for the sheep." The surrender of
his life for the sheep is thus mentioned as the crowning evidence, not
of the security of the sheep, but of the goodness of the Shepherd.
And as there is no reference at all, even by the remotest allusion, to
Burrounding goats, it is not in the least remarkable that there is no
declaration, in the parabolic (ver. 6) representation, of the relation of the
Saviour's death to the world at large.
Paul on a certain occasion said of Christ — "He loved me, and gave
himself for me." (Gal. ii. 20.) He had no occasion at the time to be
referring to Peter or to John or indeed to any of his fellow-men. And
it is because he had no occasion to be then referring to any of his
equals, that we never dream of interpreting his words as meaning —
" He loved me only, and gave himself for me only." It is precisely on
the same principle, and because our Lord had no occasion to be referring
to goats or others, and was by no means contrasting his treatment of
the one class with his treatment of the other, that we legitimately con
clude that it would be most illogical and unreasonable to infer, from
what he says of his sheep, that his propitiation has no reference to the
surrounding millions of the world.
Dr. Candlish makes various other observations about the "sheep."
But as they do not bear directly upon the question of the extent of the
atonement, and as moreover they are emasculated by the criticisms
we have already offered, we shall pass them over. Only we would
remark that when he asserts that " Christ's giving his sheep eternal life
follows as a consequence from his laying down his life for them " (p.
91), he at once departs from the simple representations of the Saviour.

34 Vindication of the
himself, and runs ont from the sphere of his divine allegory. It is
wise indeed to be ever sparing in our doctrinal inferences from alle
gories, parables, and other popularly pictorial exhibitions of truths.
Theologia symbolica, as stands the excellent rule of the schools, non est
argumentativa.

De. Candlish's Appeal to Isaiah lilt. 10-12.
The first passage to which Dr. Candlish appealed was allegorical.
The second which he adduces is prophetical. And the words, from
which he deduces his argument, are still, in many respects, the battle
field of earnest expositors, — their battlefield, not as to doctrinal, but
simply as to critical and exegetical, difficulties. It is improper to peril
much on such passages, the very translation of which is as yet unsettled.
But let us follow the doctor. The verses to which he refers form
the conclusion of one of the sublimest oracles in the book of God.
" Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief : when thou shalt
make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and
the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his
soul, and shall be satisfied : by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ;
for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; because he hath poured out his soul
unto death : and he was numbered with the transgressors ; and he bare the sin of
many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Is. liii. 10-12.)
Dr. Candlish's argument is as follows : —
" As regards the interpretation of this whole passage, I own it seems amazing that
any can read that single marvellous and momentous clause : 'He shall see of the tra
vail of his soul, and be satisfied ' — knowing what 'the travail of his soul' means, and
believing it to have been his really taking upon himself the guilt, and enduring the curse,
of a broken law — and yet admit it to be possible that any for whom he can be said, in
any sense, to have died on the cross should, after all, perish for ever. Was his soul
in travail for any of the lost ? Was it in travail for any who are not given to him to
be his seed ? Would this have been consistent with his seeing the fruit of that travail
of his soul, so as to be satisfied ? — adequately satisfied, according to the measure of the
Father's satisfaction in him? ' He shall see his seed ;' ' he shall see of the travail of
his soul.' The two things go together. The ' pouring out of his soul unto the death *
is, as it were, the very birth-pang, through which the relation of his people to himself,
as 'his seed,' is constituted, and his life is communicated to them. His anguish. is
their quickening. So 'seeing his seed,' — seeing them begotten, as it were, through
' the travail of his soul,' — he is to be ' satisfied.' " (pp. 93. 94.)
The argumentation is ingenious. But its whole apparent power
arises from a mistake. Dr. Candlish mistook the meaning of the
English word " travail," in the expression "the travail of his soul.''
And he neglected to guard himself against the mistake, by neglecting to
look at the Hebrew original of the passage. He assumed that the
word has reference to the pangs of parturition. And under the
sway of this assumption, he imagined the atonement to himself as the
birth-pang through which the elect are constituted the Saviour's seed.
Now we admit that if the atonement had really been such a birth-
pang, as Dr. Candlish has imagined, it would have been natural to con
clude that the pang was not endured except in relation to the re
sultant progeny or "seed." But the imagery, though interesting,
and affording scope for ingenuity of theory, is a* mere imagination.

Universality of the Atonement. 35
It was not got out of the oracle. It was put into it. It was not dis
covered in the field of the word. It was invented at home and then
buried in the sacred soil. And, to crown all, it was founded on an en
tire mistake. The. word " travail " has here no reference to the pains of
parturition, and was not intended by our translators to suggest that
idea. " The allusion to the pains of parturition," says Joseph Addison
Alexander justly, "which some English writers find here, has no
foundation in the Hebrew text, but only in the ambiguity of the com
mon version, which here employs the old word travail, not in its
specific but its general sense of toil or labour." (Exposition of Isaiah, in
loc.) The original term is that which is so frequently translated
"labour" in the second chapter of Ecclesiastes, and which in the
fourth verse of the fourth chapter is translated, as in Isaiah, " travail."
" I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is
envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit."
Old Mr. Fraser of Brae was not very far wrong when he said that
" Christ's doing and dying was indeed the travail of his soul, and
spending of his strength." (Treatise on Faith, p. 225.)
Because of this travail of Christ's soul, it was promised to him that
he should " see (a seed), and be satisfied." It was perceived by the
omniscient eye of God, that if the atonement were wrought out by
Christ, and heralded by the Holy Spirit in the world, there would be an
innumerable multitude who would welcome it. And in the salvation of
this multitude, as well as in the glory redounding to the great Father,
the atoner's heart will be filled with joy ; for he will be satisfied. He
will be satisfied, not simply in the sense of being contented, — that is
hot the exact import of the original term, — but in the sense of having
abundance. "He shall see and have abundance." "By his know
ledge," continues the oracle, " shall my righteous servant justify many ;
for he shall bear their iniquities." By imparting the knowledge of him
self, he shall extend (saving) righteousness to multitudes; and this
saving or justifying righteousness will be granted on a legitimate and
adequate and law-magnifying foundation, "for he shall bear their
iniquities.". Such seems to be the sublime import of the oracle. And
surely every unbiassed mind must perceive that it wears no exclusive
aspect toward the world at large.
Dr. Candlish, by an afterthought, adds a paragraph, which somewhat
saves his scholarship, but completely destroys his argument. He says, —
"Nor does the view here indicated turn upon the precise meaning of the word
rendered ' travail,' as if it denoted the pang of child-birth, any more than does the
meaning of that other expression which the apostle Paul uses, when, claiming such
a tender interest in his converts as a mother has in those whose birth has cost her
sorrow (John xvi. 21), he thus affectionately appeals to them : ' My little children,
of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you' (Gal. iv. 19). It
may be allowed that the term here employed by Isaiah means grief and labour
generally. Still, this sorrow of Messiah's soul, of which he is to see a satisfying
issue, stands connected with his ' seeing his seed ; ' and still, therefore, it would
appear that they for whom this sorrow is endured must be identified with his seed ;
and that they are his seed, because his agony of soul, endured on their behalf, is the
very cause of tueir life."- (pp. 94, 95.)
The whole argument is evaporated ; and no sediment of strength is
left behind. The more especially as it is not the case that the infract-

36 Vindication of the
able term "travail" denotes any peculiar "sorrow" or life-giving
" agony." It has the simple meaning oi painful labour or toil.
De. Candlish's Appeal to John vi. 33-51.
Dr. Candlish proceeds, though in a rather rambling manner, to con
sider some of the expressions which lie between the 33rd and the 51st
verses of the 6th chapter of the gospel according to John. The passage
in the evangelist is long ; but we must quote it.
" For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto
the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus
said unto them, I am the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall never hunger ; and
he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have
seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me : and him
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to
do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will
which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day. The Jews then murmured at him, because he
said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesusj
the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? how is it then that he saith,
I came down from heaven ? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur
jiot among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent.
me, draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets,.
And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath
learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father save
he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from
heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread lfcich came
down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the bread
that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Dr. Candlish seems to" think that there is, in this paragraph, some
thing which may be turned t6 account in the prosecution of his argu
ment. He represents our Saviour as " taking a high tone of sovereign
authority, and exposing with withering severity the impotency of the
unbelief" of those who did not embrace him.
" They were apt to regard him as, in some sort, a candidate for their favour; as if
he were presenting himself to their choice, and soliciting their suffrages, like one
dependent upon them, and standing at their mercy,— -a view which sinners are still too
generally apt to take of Him with whom, in the gift and offer of himself and his salva
tion, they have to do. The Lord gives no countenance to such trifling and dallying
with his paramount claims, and his peremptory commands and calls. Let not these
pnbelievers imagine that he has need of them, or that they can either benefit or injure
him. They may reject, they may oppose, they may persecute his person and his
cause ; but they hurt only themselves. His triumph is certain, whatever they may
do ; he is sure of having followers ani friends enough. Such, in substance, is his
remonstrance and expostulation addressed to unbelievers in the thirty-sixth and
following verses ; and such the assurance which he has, that, notwithstanding their
unbelief, ' he shall seo his seed.' " (pp. 96, 96.)
Dr. Candlish somewhat misapprehends, we imagine, the tone of our
Saviour's remarks. We conceive that there was more of compassionate
sadness in it than of withering severity. But passing this ; the doctor
continues thus : —
" In further support of that assurance, he first cites the Father's deed of gift, as the

Universality of the Atonement. 37
ultimate source of his security on this head,— as making it infallibly certain, both that
" all that the Father giveth him shall come unto him," and also, that " whosoever
cometh to him he will in no wise cast out" (ver. 37). And then he goes on to ex
plain, with special and exclusive reference to them, the precise meaning of those
feneral statements respecting himself which so much scandalized the Jews. This he
oes in such statements as these : ' The bread of God is he which cometh down from
heaven and giveth life unto the world ' (ver. 33); — ' lam that bread of life' (ver. 48) ;
— ' I am the living bread which came down from heaven ; if any man eat of this bread
he shall live for ever ; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world ' (ver. 51). Do these announcements convey the impression of
his death having a wide and general reference to all mankind indiscriminately ? Are
we to understand what he says about his coming down from heaven to ' give life unto
the world,' and his ' giving his flesh for the life of the world,' as pointing to a uni
versal atonement ? " (pp. 96, 97.)
Assuredly, we would reply. And we cannot conceive why such
passages should be cited to support the theory of an atonement for the
elect alone. Unquestionably they bear on their front what amounts at
least to a presumptive reference to a world-wide provision. And when
we combine with them the statement of the preceding 32nd verse, the
presumption is very much confirmed. That 32nd verse runs thus: —
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not (or as the expres
sion ought to be rendered, Moses hath not given you) that bread from
heaven : but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."
Though manna was no longer given to the Jews ; yet the true bread
from heaven was given as a gift, — to all to whom the Saviour was
speaking. But Dr. Candlish does not approve of understanding the expressions
as " pointing to a universal atonement." And in lack of exegetical
arguments to the contrary, he contents himself by replying to his own
query, by putting this other question : —
" Where, then, so far as his own confidence was concerned, would he have any
security that his death might not be in vain ? " (p. 97.)-
We would reply, in the first place, that the question is irrelevant.
We do not think that the Saviour was so intensely occupied, as Dr.
Candlish seems 'to suppose, with "his own confidence," and with
" security that his death should not be in vain." We are of opinion
that his soul was too large to be absorbingly concentrated on the points
of the inner circumference which was drawn around his centre of self.
And then, in the second place, we do not think that he could fear
that a work which was undertaken by him to glorify his Father in
heaven, could possibly be " in vain," whatsoever should be the treat
ment which it might receive from men. And then, in the third place,
we should imagine, that if unconditional and necessitating security for
" a seed" were really desired and required by our Lord, it might have
been obtained by him elsewhere than in the intrinsic essence of his
own wrork. Might it not have been obtained in the decree and promise
of the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit ? And if it might,
— and so Moses Amyraux and our Scotch John Cameron and Richard
Baxter and Dr. Payne and Dr. Wardlaw would have said, — why
might not the expressions of John vi. 33 and 51 be allowed to be in
terpreted in a way harmonious with their world-wide aspect ? And
then, lastly, why may we not suppose that, without the support of any
necessitating influence and necessitated security, the Saviour regarded

38 Vindication of the
the whole scheme of propitiation, with its promulgation and application,
as being so wisely devised, and so skilfully adanted to the real wants of
mankind, that it was easy for the eye of omniscience to see that it would
be a veritable Power among men, and have influence, and succeed ?
It is true that our Saviour says in verse 37, "all that the Father
giveth me, shall come to me." And it is also true that he says in verse
44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
draw him." But then, as Luther remarks, we are not to suppose that
the Father draws sinners to the Saviour as a hangman draws culprits
to the gallows. He does not either drag or drive. He draws. And he
draws with "the cords of a man." He attracts by means of light and
love. Our Saviour himself explains how his Father draws. For after
saying in the 44th verse " No man can come to me except the Father
draw him," he immediately adds in the 45th verse, — " It is written in
the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God : every man therefore
that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." The
Father, then, draws by lovingly illuminating. And what is to hinder
us from supposing that it is all those, who unshutter their souls to receive
the illumination, and who thus voluntarily suffer themselves to be drawn,
whom the Father gives to the Son, and who thus constitute the Saviour's
seed ? If the divine wisdom was adequate to the invention of a redemp
tive scheme which should meet the wants of mankind, and so meet them
that the eye of omniscience could discover its actual success, why should
not this infinite wisdom, and the infinite power which is its ministering
servant, be regarded as furnishing to our Lord a sufficient basis of
security that his death would not be in vain ? Is there no security but
in necessity ? Is baptised fate the only refuge of sinners, and^the only
resource of the Saviour himself ?

De. Candlish's Appeal to oite Lokd's Inteecessoet Puatee, John xvn.
The next appeal of Dr. Candlish is to our Lord's intercessory prayer,
as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John's gospel.
" Nothing, one would think, can well be clearer, to an earnest student of that
prayer, than this, that it proceeds throughout upon the idea of the limitation of the
entire work of Christ to the people given to him Dy the Father. Of the design of his
interposing as mediator at all, he intimates that it is with a view to his ' giving life to
as many as the Father hath given him :' ' Father the hour is come ; glorify thy Son,
that thy Son also may glorify thee : as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that
he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him' (ver. 1, 2). When
speaking of his ' obedience unto death,' or ' the work given him to do,' which he
' finished ' ere he left the world, and by which he ' manifested the Father's name,' he
expressly restricts it all to 'the men which the Father gave him out of the world :'
' I nave glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished the work which thou gavest
me to do. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out
of the world : thine they were, and thou gavest them me ; and they have kept thv
word ' (ver. 4, 6). And of his ministry of intercession, which he began on earth, and
now prosecutes in heaven, he speaks, if possible, still more explicitly : ' I pray for
them ; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me ; for tbey
are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and I am glorified in them
(ver. 6, 10)."— pp. 100, 101.
" Thus Christ unequivocally restricts and limits his own work of obedience, atone
ment, and intercession, to'those whom the Father hath given him." (p. 102.)

Universality of the Atonement. 39
But Dr. Candlish, we apprehend, has once more been transgressing
his own rule, and neglecting to give sufficiently " intelligent and com
prehensive study " to our Lord's " leading train of thought." He mis
takes indeed altogether, as we conceive, the nature of our Lord's
intercession. " For his intercession," says he, "is not a mere ministry
of persuasive pleading, making a merit, as it were, of his atonement.
It is the actual presenting of the atonement itself before God his Father."
(p. 101.) But if Dr. Candlish will take another standpoint, and view
the subject through other and clearer and more powerful optics than
the spectacles of figurative and typical representation, he will see that
there is but one possible way in which the glorified Saviour can inter-
cedingly present his atonement. He can only, on the ground of it, as
a work which he finished on earth, and which he could not carry into
heaven in any other than in a figurative sense, lift up to his Father
holy and benevolent and enlightened desires. His atoning work con
sisted, when viewed in the heart of its reality, of acts; and hence
it cannot be otherwise presented. And if our Saviour " prayed " and
" asked " on earth, no possible reason can be assigned for supposing
that he does not pray and ask in heaven. Although in heaven, he
will still have desires. And since he is holy, how can he do other
wise, than lift up his desires to his Father ?
Dr. Candlish, moreover, also mistakes the particular act of inter
cession, which is specified in John xvii. 9. He seems to look upon the
declaration "I pray for them, I pray not for the world," as an
absolute definition of the persons in whose behalf our Lord was to
exercise his intercessory office. He looks upon it, apparently, as mean
ing — " I^exercise my intercessory office in behalf of mine elect : I
exercise it not in behalf of the world at large." And he would infer,
according to the apothegm of the old Limitarians, that it must certainly
be the case that " Christ refused to pay for the world, since he refused
to pray for it." But if Dr. Candlish would only look at the words of
our Saviour, as they stand in the original, he would see that, when
literally and correctly translated, they stand thus — " I ask for them, I
ask not for the world." The term rather unhappily rendered " I
pray," (igurau), is one that cannot be used absolutely like the term which
properly means " I pray," (vgosiuxof&ui), or the term which means "I
make intercession," (svruyj^ai/w, wgaeivTMy^avoi). It is a term which
must always have the object of petition either expressly specified, or
obviously implied. Whenever it is used, the inquiry is instantly
suggested, What is it which is asked ? So that, when our Saviour says,
" I ask for them, I ask not for the world," the expositor is bound at
once to inquire, What is it which our Saviour is asking for his disciples,
and not asking for the world ? And if Dr. Candlish will but " com
prehensively study the leading train of thought " in the prayer, he will
see that, after the parenthesis which extends from the middle of the
9th verse to the middle of the 11th, the blessing asked is specified.
"Holy Father, keep through thine own name, those whom thou hast
given me, that they may be one, as we are." It is unity which he asks
for his disciples. After the 12th, 13th, and 14th verses, which are not
petitionary, the Saviour continues — "I pray not that thou shouldest
take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from

40 Vindication of the
the evil (which is in the world)." This evil would split their spiritual
unity into fragments, and make them an easy prey to the enemies of
Christianity and godliness. For it is of the essence of holy love to bind
together, and of selfishness to dissever and dissolve. Then after the 16th
verse, which is not petitionary, the Saviour adds in the 17th, "sanctify
them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Their progressive
sanctification would be the grand means of ensuring that they should
be lastingly one. After the 18th and 19th verses, which likewise are
not petitionary, the Saviour reverts to his petition, and enlarges its
original reference. " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one,
as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in
us : that the woeld mat believe that thou hast sent me. And the
glory which thou gavest me, I have given them ; that they may be one,
even as we are one : I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made per
fect in one ; and that the woeld mat know that thotj hast sent me,
AND HAST LOVED THEM, AS THOTJ HAST LOVED ME." (ver. 20-24.)
It is unity, as is abundantly evident, which is the burden of the peti
tions of our Lord, so far as he " asks for his disciples, and asks not for
the world." And who needs to be at a loss to see that it was love to the
world which led our Saviour to confine such a petition to his disciples ?
Could he have loved the world, and yet have asked that it should be
" one " ? What would have been the consequences, if the world, in its
worldliness, had been at one? Would it not have been utterly
inaccessible to evangelizing efforts on the one hand? And would it
not, on the other, have been altogether irresistible in its opposition to
the cause of the gospel ? Union is strength : and disunion is weakness.
And while therefore it is union which is the blessing of blessings for
the holy church, it is disunion which is the blessing of blessings for
the worldly world. Hence, doubtless, it was that our loving Saviour
said, in equal love to both the church and the world, " I ask (union)
for my disciples ; I ask (it) not for the world."
And if Dr. Candlish would but look to those parts of our Lord's in
tercessory prayer, which we have marked in capitals, he would see
something farther still. He would see that while it is the case that
our Saviour asks not union for the world ; it is yet so very far from
being true that he restricts and limits his intercession to those "whom
the Father hath given him out of the world," that he does actually
" pray for the world." And not only so ; the very prayers which he
offers up for the church are but stepping-stones to his prayer for the
world. The particular blessing which he "asks for the church, and
not for the world," is asked for the ehurch, with a view to another and
appropriate blessing for the world :— " That the world may believe that
thou hast sent me" :— " That the world may know that thou hast sent
me" : — that is, That the world may believe the glorious gospel, — That
God so loved it as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life ;— that
the world may " come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved."
In the great heart of the Saviour there was room for the whole world.
And every man in the world had and has a place in that heart. It is
a positive impeachment of the moral grandeur of Christ's character,

Universality of the Atonement. 41
to say or to think that it was only for the elect that he prayed, and that
he died.
It will not now. appear wonderful that the rest of our Lord's inter
cessory prayer has been misunderstood by Dr. Candlish. For example,
our Saviour says — " Father, the hour is come ; glorify thy Son, that
thy Son also may glorify thee : as thou hast given him power over all
flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."
(ver. 1, 2.) And Dr. Candlish draws the following conclusion from the
words, — " Of the design of interposing asMediator at all, he intimates that
it is with a view to his giving life to as many as the Father hath given
him." But the Saviour, as must be evident to any one who simply
reads the words, and imports nothing of his own into their contents, makes
no reference whatever to his " design of interposing as Mediator at
all." His prayer is substantially to the following effect: — "Father,
" the hour of the completion of my atoning work is come. Glorify thy
" Son with the glory which he had with thee before the world was,
"that thy Son may glorify thee by turning back to thee the alienated
"hearts of thy rebellious subjects on earth. This glorious work of
" glorifying thee is thy Son's. It is his, in as much as, in virtue of
"his full propitiation for the sins of the whole world, thou hast
" given him authority over all mankind without distinction or exception,
" that he may give eternal life to as many of the rebels as will accept
" it through his mediation. And all these, my Father, thou hast given
"me -to be my seed, my people, my brethren, my everlasting and ex
ceeding great reward." If the idea of a cold-blooded and uncondi
tionally murderous reprobation be set aside, the expression " all flesh "
cannot be rationally accounted for, except on the principle that the
atonement has a genuine and benevolent relation to the whole of man
kind. The doctor equally errs when, proceeding to the interpretation of
verses 4-6, he says of our Saviour, —
" When speaking of his ' obedience unto death,' or ' the work given him to do,'
which he ' finished ' ere he left the world, and by which he ' manifested the Father's
name,' he expressly restricts it all to ' the men which the Father gave him out of the
world .' ' I have glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished the work which thou
gavest me to do. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me
out of the world : thine they were, and thou gavest them me ; and they have kept
thy word (ver. 4, 6)."— p. 100.
But the Saviour by rib means does the thing which Dr. Candlish
rashly imputes to him. He does not expressly restrict "the work
given him to do " to " the men which the Father gave him out of the
world." The actual state of the case is far otherwise, as any one may
at a glance verify to himself by an inspection of the paragraph. Between
the reference to the " work finished "..(for all flesh), and the reference
to the " manifestation of the Father's name " to the personal disciples
who were " the men whom the Father gave him out of the world," and
one of whom was Judas (verses 11, 12), — between the two references
there is interposed a whole verse, which Dr. Candlish omits. And this
verse is of such a nature that it makes a manifest break in the connec
tion between the " work finished " and the " manifestation of the
Father's name." The verse is the following, — "And now, 0 Father,
glorify thou me, with thip.e own self, with the glory which I had with

42 Vindication of the
thee before the world was." We are surprised that Dr. Candlish should
so frequently violate his own excellent rule, and "cull and select
separate sentences and phrases to serve a purpose," omitting an "in
telligent and comprehensive study of the leading train of thought."

De. Candlish's Appeal to Rom. v. 8-10.
Dr. Candlish's next appeal is to Rom. v. 8-10: — "But God commendeth
his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
us. Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son ; much more being re
conciled, we shall be saved by his life." The doctor thinks it sufficient
to say, in reference to this passage, "Axe not believers here taught to
connect the certainty of their ultimate salvation with the atoning death
of Christ as that which of itself, and by its very nature, makes their
ultimate salvation certain to all for whom he died?" (p. 102.) We
would reply to his question, by saying, that it is something very different
which believers are here taught. They are taught, that, when they
realise themselves as being believers in the death of Christ, and as being
consequently justified and reconciled, they have then reason to look
upon the love of God as affording them the amplest security for their
ultimate salvation. If such be God's love, reasons the apostle, — that it
provided Christ for them . before they believed, and blessed them with
justification and reconciliation after they believed; surely they may
rest assured that it will not withhold from them the fulness of salvation,
now that they are not only believing, but also justified and reconciled.
The idea of the apostle is well exhibited by Professor Hodge — " Ii
Christ died for his enemies, surely he will save his friends." (Commen
tary, in loc.)
It is thus true that the death of Christ is represented as the ground of
justification and reconciliation. It is the meritorious cause of these
blessings. But it is not true that it is exhibited as " of itself, and by
its very nature, making ultimate salvation certain." It is with the
death of Christ, not absolutely considered, but as believed in, that the
apostle connects justification, reconciliation, and ultimate glorification.
It is not here, then, that evidence can be found of the limitation of
the atonement to the elect.

De. Candlish's Appeal to Rom. viii. 34, 35.
_ Dr. Candlish says,—" The reasoning in the close of the eighth chapter
is equally conclusive :— ' It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? ' "
(p. 103.) Doubtless, we reply. The apostle's reasoning in one place is
equally conclusive with his reasoning in another. And his reasoning in
Rom. viii. 34, 35, is thoroughly conclusive. But the reasoning of the
apostle Paul is one thing ; and the reasoning of Dr. Candlish is another

Universality of the Atonement. 43
Dr. Candlish's reasoning in the case before us, is, we apprehend, very
far from being conclusive. For he infers from the apostle's words that
" the death of Christ by its own exclusive energy, secures the salvation
(of the elect)." (p. 102.) It is however a very different inference
which it is legitimate to deduce. The apostle has asked in the
immediately preceding context, — " Who is he that condemneth ? " that
is, " Who is he that condemneth us believers ? " And he answers his
own question thus, — "(It is) Christ that died," or rather, "(Is it) Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand
of God, who also maketh intercession for us ? " Will he condemn us ?
No. It is not to be supposed that Christ will condemn Christians.
Then the apostle ascends another step, and asks another question.
" Who shall separate us, (that is, us believers) from the love of Christ ? "
And his answer cumulates in his hands, or rather in his heart, till it
sets his genius on fire, and he rises into the very sublime of holy
oratory : — " Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword?" — Nay. — These things have no
manner of tendency to alienate Christ from Christians. " In all these
things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us." And
if they do not alienate us from Christ, it would be the highest absurdity
to suppose that they would alienate Christ from us. Sufferings endured
for Christ will assuredly not alienate Christ from the Christ-like
sufferers. It is, thus, Christian sufferers, it is believers, — it is men who sustain
the relation of faith to Christ's death, of whom the apostle speaks. It
is of them alone. And he makes no reference whatever to any supposed
bearing of the death of Christ on the unbelieving, or on the uncon
ditionally elect. The elect to whom he refers are believers. And
hence there is nothing in the passage which utters the slightest peep
or mutter or hint in reference to a limitation of the atonement to the
unconditionally elect.

De. Candlish's Appeal to Rom. iv. 16.
Dr. Candlish continues : —

grace,to 'all the seed.'" (p. 103.)
True. But Dr. Candlish either neglected to notice, or he forgot to
mention, that "all the seed" is simply Abraham's "seed." It is
simply Abraham's spiritual family. It is, that is to say, believers ;
whether they be Jews or Gentiles. "For the promise," says the
apostle, " that he should be the heir of the world (as it is to be,) was
not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith." (ver. 13.) But how the fact that the heirship
of the world is promised to all Abraham's spiritual seed without dis
tinction of race, proves that Christ died for the elect alone, we cannot
divine.

44 Vindication of the

De. Candlish's Geneeal Remaek on Rom. v. 8-10 ; vm. 34, 35,
AND IV.' 16.
" In these," says Dr. Candlish, " and various other passages, it is
uniformly implied, that to have an interest in Christ, in the_ sense of
being among the number of those for whom he died, secures, infallibly,
everlasting salvation." (p. 103.) But the real implication is quite
different. It is this: — That to have an interest in Christ, in the sense
of being among those whose life is a life of faith in him, secures infallibly
everlasting life. It is he who believeth, who believeth in Christ, who
"shall be saved." (Acts xvi. 31.) , And if any seek for everlasting sal
vation, and yet find it not, the reason is, " because they seek it not by
faith." (Rom. ix. 32.)
Yet the Dr. proceeds, — " To separate between the proposition, ' he
gave himself for me,' and the proposition, ' I am safe for eternity,' —
would be to cut off the very bridge by which, as a prisoner of hope, I
can ever dream of reaching the stronghold to which I would flee for
my life." (p. 103.) We should be very sorry indeed to cut down the
indispensable bridge. But there is no need for the demolition. For there
is no need for the separation of the two propositions. And Dr. Candlish
will see that there is none, if he will only consider that there are two
distinct facts involved in the first of the two. When one says " Christ
gave himself for me," there is something subjective, in addition to
something objective, involved in his declaration. He really means, ¦" I
believe that Christ gave himself for me." There is thus the subjective
fact of faith, in addition to the objective fact of the atonement. And the
doctor's logical bridge is thus found to consist, not of two, but of three
distinct and noble arches. They are these — (1) Christ gave himself for
me ; (2) I believe in him ; (3) Therefore I am safe for eternity.
It is, then, very far indeed from being the case, that it is the death of
Christ, absolutely considered, which affords the assurance of salvation.
It is the death of Christ as believed in. There must be the synthesis
of the objective and the subjective in order to vital union with the
death, and with the consequent resurrection and endless life of Christ,
and thus in order to the realization of peace with God, of joy unspeak
able, of hope that is full of glory, and of holiness assimilating to the
Holy Holy Holy One.
De. Candlish's Appeal to John xv. 13, 14.
The next passage to which Dr Candlish appeals is in John xv. 13, 14.
It is the following : — " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever
I command you." They are richly suggestive words. And they form
a part of a long and peculiarly interesting allocution of our Lord to his
disciples. Dr. Candlish builds up his argument in the following
manner : — '
" In the fifteenth chapter of John the Lord is dwelling on the abundance of fruit
which he would have his disciples to bring forth (ver. 6) ; on the fulness^of joy of

Universality of the Atonement. 45
which he would have them to be partakers (ver. 11) ; on the large desires in prayer
which he is ready to satisfy (ver. 7) ; and on the copious stream of mutual love which
he would have to flow from himself through all their hearts (ver. 9, 10). And, to
sum up the whole,— to convince them that there' could be nothing, in the way of
attainment or of enjoyment, too high for them to aspire after, — he appeals to his
dying for them, as explaining all and justifying all : ' Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Te are my friends, if ye do what
soever I command you' (ver. 13, 14). The whole force of this motive to enlarge
ment of expectation is gone, if his death be not the pledge of his special love to his
friends. If no greater proof of love can he given than his laying down his life, and
if it be not for his friends exclusively, but indiscriminately and universally for the
whole world, that he does lay down his life, what has he in reserve to demonstrate his
affection for his people ? Can he, on that supposition, give them any proof of love
greater than he giveBthe world ?" (pp. 105, 106.)
Dr. Candlish entirely misapprehends the setting of the gem-like words
to which he appeals. Arid his misapprehension, indeed, is so
extraordinary, that we are at a loss how to account for it. it is not
the case that our Lord is " dwelling " in the preceding context " on the
abundance of fruit which he would have his disciples to bring forth ;
on the fulness of joy of which he would have them to be partakers ; on
the large desires in prayer which he is ready to satisfy ; and on the
copious stream of mutual love which he would have to flow from him
self through all their hearts." On these things, he does indeed touch.
But he only touches on them, and passes by. It is something else
altogether on which he " dwells."
After stating the nature of the connection which subsisted between
himself and his disciples, under the figure of a vine and its branches ; he
proceeds in the 3rd verse of the chapter, to that which is the real burden
of his allocution : — " abide in me." In the same verse he adds, " As the
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more
can ye except ye abide in me." Then in the next verse he says, "he
that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit."
In the sixth he says, " If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch, and is withered." In the seventh he says, " If ye abide in me,
and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be
done unto you." In the ninth he says, "As the Father hath loved me,
so have I loved you : continue ye in my love." In the tenth he says,
" If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." It is easy
then to see what it is on which the Saviour is " dwelling," and which
he is wishful to inculcate and enforce by motive upon motive. It is
the duty of abiding in Christ, — of continuing in his love. Did Dr.
Candlish dislike to look at this, because it assumes the principle of
free will, and represents the state of believers as somewhat less fixed
than he is accustomed to consider it ? Or was there any other reason
why he over-looked it ? We leave it with Dr. Candlish to answer.
But we proceed to remark that our Lord, having said to his disciples
that "if they kept his commandments, they would abide in his love,"
goes on in the 1 2th verse to specify the great commandment which he
specially desired them to observe : — " This is my commandment, that
ye love one another, as I have loved you." Then follow the two verses
to which" Dr. Candlish's appeal is made, " Greater love hath no man
than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." Such is the setting of

46 Vindication of the
the verses. And yet Dr. Candlish actually supposes that they are
intended to be a " motive to enlargement of expectation " ! _ He repre
sents the words as uttered by our Lord to " convince his disciples that
there could be nothing in the way of attainment or of enjoyment too
high for them to aspire after " ! We are amazed. Did he not read
even the verse which is their vestibule : — " This is my commandment,
that ye love one another, as I have loved you " ? Or did he dislike to
look at the idea of duty and its implication — free-will, which " dwells "
at once in this vestibule-verse, and in the verses to which it introduces ?
Or was it haste that is to blame? We know not. But it is unquestionable
that the words of the 13th verse do not present " a motive to enlarge
ment of expectation." They are a sublime enforcement of the duty of
brotherly love : and they involve a specification of the extent to which
the duty reaches. The words of the 14th verse reiterate the contingent
element which pervades the entire preceding part of the address.
When our Lord says — " Greater love hath no man than this, that a
man lay down his life for his friends," he is evidently not enunciating,
with precise doctrinal strictness, the nature, reference, and aims of his
own atoning death. He only states a general proposition, which would
have been true though he himself had never died. And while he un
doubtedly intended an application of the general proposition to himself,
still from the very fact that the intended application is latent, the costume
of terminology is not determined by it. Had there been more than a
latent application, and had the phraseology been determined accordingly,
we might have expected that the proposition would have run thus : —
" Greater love hath no one than this, that one lay down his life for his
enemies." (See Rom. v. 7-10.) As the Saviour, however, was not
expounding the doctrine of his own atoning death, but enforcing on his
disciples the duty of brotherly love, his language is tantamount to this, —
" It is my will that ye love one another, as I love you. And, though
" I say not how much I love you, yet ye may gather somewhat con-
" cerning the depth of my affection from what I have from time to
" time intimated regarding my death. In all ordinary cases, greater love
" hath no man than this, that he die for his friends. Ye are my friends,
" and it is necessary for your weal, though perhaps ye know it not fully,
" that one shduld die for you. One will die for you. But ye are not
" only my friends. Ye are friends to one another. And I shall expect
" that you will love one another with something of my own disinterested
" and self-sacrificing love." "We ought," says the apostle John, "to
lay down our lives for the brethren." (1 Epist. iii. 16.) It will be
at once evident, that our Lord was not comparing his love for his
friends with his love for his enemies, or his love for the elect with his
love for the world at large. He is by no means intimating that he has
greater love for one class of persons than for another. Still less is he
intimating that he has no love at all for the great masses of men. He
is speaking of his friends alone, and of their mutual duties, and he is
only latently, though most suggestively, applying to himself an apothegm,
which held up to their view the measure of the love which they them
selves were bound to cherish toward one another.
It will be noted, moreover, that it is not at all to the elect, as elect, that
he is referring, when he speaks of his friends. It is to his immediate

Universality of the Atonement. 47
disciples. And in addressing them by the endearing appellation, he
cautiously employs language which, instead of implying an absolutely
decreed fixity, suggests contingency and free-will. " Ye are my
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
Dr. Candlish, indeed, looking upon our Lord's declaration, apart from
this contingent element, and regarding his words as not only a precise
doctrinal declaration of the aim of the atoning death, but as also a
" motive to enlargement (not of duty, but) of expectation " on the part
of the elect, may imagine that "the whole force of the motive is gone,
if Christ's life be not the pledge of his special love to his friends."
But his imagination is grounded on a combination of misapprehen
sions. The fbree of the motive is not gone, when we see that the
motive intended is a motive to duty. For whenever a man profoundly
realizes that both he and his friends, it may be, or that both he and
his enemies, are loved by Jesus, and loved with Christ's deepest and most
unspeakable love, he will be under the power of a motive which will
mightily constrain him to love his neighbour, whether friend' or foe, as
he loves himself.
Dr. Candlish adds, — " If no greater proof of love can be given than
his laying, down his life, and if it be not for his friends exclusively, but
indiscriminately and universally for the whole world, that he does lay
down his life, what has he in reserve to demonstrate his affection for
his people?" (p. 106.) We would reply that his question is totally
irrelevant to the passage we are considering. But even were it rele
vant, there is much " in reserve," by which Christ may demonstrate his
peculiar love for his believing people. For though there is no gift
equal to the gift of himself; yet, when he adds peace of conscience, joy
in the Holy Ghost, hope of glory, and love — the greatest of the graces,
and ultimate glorification, he brings out of " the fulness of the godhead,"
which is dwelling in him, almost an immensity of blessings in reserve.

De. Candlish's Appeal to Rom. vm. 32.
In Rom. viii. 32, the apostle says : — " 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 ? " And Dr. Candlish reasons thus : —
" Paul represents believers as arguing, from the mere fact of Christ's dying for
them, that they may claim and challenge all the abundant blessings of grace and
Salvation. This they could never do if his death was a propitiation or atonement in
which they had simply a common interest with mankind at large, including the re
probate and lost." (p. 107.)
We like not the expression " claim and challenge." It smacks too
much of mere justice, and savours too little of grace. But it is
unquestionably the case, that the apostle's lofty interrogatory indicates
the largest conceptions of the consistent generosity of God, and proceeds
on the principle that since God has given the greatest of his gifts, he
will not withhold from them who have embraced it, any lesser blessing
which may be needed for their ultimate and everlasting weal, and
which they may be in a fit state to improve and enjoy. It is believers
conscious of their belief, of whose holy confidence the apostle is speaking.

48 Vindication of the
And yet the principle holds good in the case of unbelievers too. God
is not withholding even from these any lesser blessing, which is
required in order to their everlasting salvation, and which they are in
a fit state to improve. He has poured out the influence of his Holy
Spirit on them, and it stirs and strives within their consciences. He is
pointing them to the propitiation. He is honestly and earnestly
inviting and exhorting them, remonstrating and reasoning with them,
and commanding them. He wooes them by the gift of prosperity. He
awes them by the award of adversity. He likewise, and most liberally,
"affords them faith" (Acts xvii. 31). And were it not that by
refusing this " gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8), they shut the doors of their
hearts, and bolt them within, and will not open them from within
(Rev. iii. 20), God would fill their souls with peace and joy and hope
and holiness. It was simply " because of the unbelief" of tie
people of his own country, that Christ " did not many mighty works
there." (Mat. xiii. 58.) It was simply because Jerusalem " would
not," that our Saviour gathered not her children together, " even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings." (Matt, xxiii. 37.) It
was simply "because of unbelief," that the branches of the olive tree
"were broken off." (Rom. xi. 20.)
It is the glory of the atonement that it is for all mankind. But
those who will not avail themselves of it, cannot be expected to
receive and enjoy the blessings which are linked to it from behind. It
is only they who accept the unspeakable gift, who can receive the
other blessings. But all such do receive them. The " unspeakable
gift " draws after it into the recipient soul all the other good and per
fect gifts which are divinely attached to it. Or,' to drop the figure,
God blesses those with justification, sanctification, consolation, and
glorification, who accept the propitiation.

De. Candlish's Appeal to the Gift oe the Holt Spieit.
Dr. Candlish contends that " the several elements and ingredients of
the salvation of Christ's people, or of the blessedness in which it con
sists, are so connected with his dying for them, as to preclude the
possibility of that event being regarded in any other light than as a
special atonement for their sins exclusively, and as purchasing, by its
own intrinsic efficacy, for them, and for them alone, ' all things that
pertain unto life and godliness.' (2 Pet. i. 3.)" He specifies the gift of
the Holy Spirit, " for the purposes of conversion, and sanctification,
and comfort, as the Spirit of regeneration and the Spirit of adoption."
When he speaks of "the Spirit of regeneration," he means, as he
afterwards explains, The Spirit who so regenerates the elect while yet
unbelieving, as to enable them to believe. This gift of the Spirit is, as
he contends, conferred only on the ultimately saved. And as it is
represented as being the fruit of the atoning death of the Saviour, he
concludes that, as the gift of the Spirit is limited, the gift of the atone
ment must be limited too. He quotes as proof-texts three passages
namely (1.) John vii. 37-39,—" In the last day, that great day of the
feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man thirst, let him come

. Universality of the A tonement. 49
unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath
said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters. (But this spake
he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive : for
the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet
glorified.)" (2.) John xvi. 7, — "It is expedient for you that I go
away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ;
but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (3.) Acts ii. 33, —
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
forth this, which ye now see and hear." He concludes that " to all,
for whom Christ died, the Holy Spirit, in his saving power, is
given." (pp. 107-112.)
We agree with Dr. Candlish in holding that "to all for whom Christ
died, the Holy Spirit in his saving power is given." But then we also
agree with Stephen in holding that even when the Holy Spirit comes
in his saving power, men may "resist" him, and are in fact often
successful in their resistance. (Acts vii. 51.) We agree with Paul that
it is possible not only to "grieve," but also to "quench" the Spirit.
(Eph. iv. 30; 1 Thess. v. 19.) For we suppose that his "saving
power " is moral in its nature, and not at all to be confounded with his
physical omnipotence. It is a power over souls, and not over stocks
or stones or stars. It is a power that acts by motives. It is a
power that appeals to intelligence. It is a power that never forces
free-will. It does not drag men's souls; it only draws them, and
draws them with the cords of a man. It is indeed by the inter-
mediacy of the Spirit's power that men are at once drawn by the
Father and drawn by the Son. And the measure in which the power is
inwardly experienced, will ever be found to be proportional to the
voluntary recipiency of the soul.
But what then, it may be asked, is to be made of the passages which
Dr. Candlish quotes ? They are altogether, we would reply, irrelevant
to the object he has in view. The first; — John vii. 37-39 — is expressly
taken out of his hands by the Evangelist himself; for he says "But this
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive."
The reference therefore is not to any supposed influence which is regener-
atingly productive of faith ; but to ulterior influences which are vouch
safed on the condition of faith, and which involve those blessings of
inner enjoyment and spiritual usefulness which are peculiar to believers.
The second passage — John xvii. 7 — in which the Saviour says " if I
depart, I will send the Comforter unto you," is immediately followed
by a declaration, which shows the world-wide sphere of his operation :
— " And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of
righteousness and of judgment." (ver. 8.) The same influence, which,
nearer its centre, would guide the apostles " into all (the) truth," was
to embrace within its vast circumference the whole of mankind, —
leaving not a soul of man without the benefit of some sufficient
"witness." The third passage is Acts ii. 33, — "Therefore, being by
the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost (the promised Holy Ghost),_he hath shed
forth this, which ye now see." But the words are an intentional re
duplication on a preceding averment, — " This is that which was spoken

50 Vindication of the
by the prophet Joel, and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,
I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters
shall prophecy," &c. (ver. 16, 17.) The influence is universal, though
it varies in its manifestations according to the varied circumstances of
time and locality and necessity.
We agree, then, with Dr. Candlish in holding that to all for whom
Christ died, the Holy Spirit is given. But we go up from doctor
Candlish to the doctors who occupied a more commanding point of view,
and we agree with them that as the love of the Father is to the whole
world of men, so the work of the Son is for all our brethren of man
kind without distinction, and the influence of the Spirit is over all,
and on all, and in all, without exception.

De. Candlish's Appeal to Eph. v. 22-33.
Dr. Candlish betakes himself to Eph. v. 22-33, the profoundly
suggestive exhortation to wives and husbands. In the 22nd, 23rd, and
24th verses, wives are enjoined to be subject to their husbands, even as
the church is subject to Christ. And in the 25th, 26th, and 27th
verses, husbands are thus addressed : — " Love your wives, even as
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it ; that he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ; that he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any- such thing; but that it should be holy, and without
blemish." Dr. Candlish says : —
" The appeal, I maintain, is unmeaning, frivolous, and irrelevant, if Christ is to he
held as having given himself for any besides the Church which he is to ' present,' to
betroth and marry, ' to himself, as a glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing.' Upon any such understanding, his having given himself, in his
atoning death, is no evidence of his special and fond regard for the Church, which is his
bride and spouse. It can be evidence of nothing more than his general good-will
towards mankind at large. That, however, is not surely the type of the peculiar love
which husbands owe to their wives. The exhortation is emasculated — its whole pith
is gone — if it be any other love than that which Christ has for his own (John xiii. 1),
that the apostle brings forward as the motive and the measure of the conjugal love
which he is enjoining upon believing husbands. And of that love, his givingmmself
for the Church is no evidence or instance at all, unless his doing so is peculiar to the
Church, and to the Church alone." (p. 114.)
But if Dr. Candlish would take into account the extreme selfishness,
which, when the gospel began its regenerating career, ruled the rela
tion of husbands to their wives, and which, even yet, is the bane of
domestic life ; he would not think it strange that the apostle should
refer in his exhortation, not so much to that lower love of self-gratifica
tion which must not wander in wantonness, as to that higher benevol
ence, which is, alas, far too often withheld from -wives, but which is
certainly never to become their monopoly. Husbands are too frequently
predominantly selfish in their love. They love their wives in the way
of seeking not so much to impart happiness to them, as to extract
happiness from them. It is rather for their own than for their wives'
sakes, that they love. It is rather themselves, in short, than their
Wives, who are the real objects of their love. There is little or nothing

Universality of the Atonement. 51
of self-sacrifice in their affection. There is little or nothing in it which
is akin to that pure benevolence which seeks the bHss of its object, but
which should certainly never be restricted either to wives, or to
husbands, or to children, or to friends.
It was in opposition, we apprehend, to this spirit of selfishness, which
is the real canker-worm at the root of the conjugal institution in the
millions of our world's homes, that our Saviour said, — "Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for
it": — "Husbands, love your wives, not selfishly, but benevolently
and self-sacrificingly." The injunction assumes that Christ, in work
ing out his great propitiation, let his mind go forth in joy to the
contemplation of those, in all ages and climes, who were seen by the eye
of omniscience to welcome the gospel. He saw that a multitude whom
no man can number would respond to his universal love, and say of
Him, "We love thee, because we see that thou hast first loved us."
He was glad in spirit. And as he hung upon the cross, he thought of
" the great congregation " (Psalm xxii.), and gave himself up to death,
not only with a view to make atonement for universal man, but also
under the influence of the loving determination that he would, in the
occurrence of voluntary faith in his work, " sanctify and cleanse " the
willing believers as " with the washing of water by the word ; " so
that he might ultimately present them to himself as a glorious church,
and a spotless bride. And, as a man "leaves his father and his
mother, and is joined to his wife, and they twain become one flesh;"
so our Saviour, in accordance with "the great mystery" indicated in
Eph. v. 32, resolved that, though he must ascend for a season to his
Father's house, and carry out from his high throne the universal ends
of his universal propitiation, yet the heavens should not always retain
him. He will come again, when all things are ready. He will come
again and receive his bride, and take her to himself. Then shall be the
marriage of " the Lamb and his wife." Then shall be " the marriage
supper of the Lamb." The true "bridal of the earth and sky" shall
then have occurred. There will be everlasting glory. And humanity
and divinity shall for ever be "at one" in thought, and in love, and
in bliss.
Dr. Candlish seems to speak; slightingly of Christ's " general good-will
towards mankind at large." But we would look with different eyes
upon his wondrous love to man as man, and to every man as a man.
We regard it as " higher than heaven, deeper than hell, longer than the
earth, and broader than the sea " ; and indeed as " passing knowledge."
It is sincere to infinity. And if believed in by men, as it flows to them
through the cross, it would give them peace to all eternity.
Dr. Candlish says of this love, that " it is not surely, the type of the
peculiar love which husbands owe to their wives." It is not, we ad
mit, the type of that peculiar self-enjoying love which husbands owe to
their wives. But it is most assuredly the one glorious examplar and
type of the true, disinterested, and self-sacrificing love which is the salt
that preserves the other love from the merest selfishness and sensuality.
It is the type of all that noblest kind of love, which is too often with
held from wives ; and in the withholding of which they are turned
either into the pampered minions, or into the imperiously-treated

52 Vindication of the
menials, of pleasure. And although Dr. Candlish maintains that the
apostle's appeal is " unmeaning, frivolous, and irrelevant if Christ is
to be held as having given himself for any besides the church," his idea,
we conceive, is but the result of a misapprehension of the realities of
which he speaks. The church was not thought of by our Saviour, as
"the church " except on the hypothesis of such antecedents as a uni
versal propitiation, a universal proclamation of the propitiation, and here
and there and " manywheres " a multitudinous voluntary reception
of the proffered boon. And we are sure, moreover, that if any hus
band will act toward his wife in the spirit of the disinterested and
Belf-sacrificing benevolence which animated Jesus when he "tasted
death for every man," he will, though he should love others too with
a kindred benevolence, render to his wife such a measure, heaped up
and running over, of conjugal love, as shall amply suffice to constitute
his home, so far as his influence over it is concerned, a little heaven on
earth. When Peter commanded husbands to " give honour" to their wives
(1 Epist. iii. 7), did he intend that they should give honour to them
only? Nay: he says " Honour all men." (chap. ii. 17.) WhenPaul, in
his Epistle to the Colossians writes thus : — " Husbands, love your
wives, and be not bitter against them" (Col. iii. 18), does "he mean that
it is only in their relation to their wives that they are to refrain from
bitterness ? Nay : for he enjoins them to " put on bowels of mercies "
toward the whole church, and to " forbear one another, and forgive
one another." (Chap. iii. 12, 13.) When our Saviour says "Love
your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you " (Luke vi. 27), does
he mean that we are to love none but our enemies, to do good to none
but to them who hate us, to bless only those who curse us, and to ex
clude all others from our prayers but those who despitefully use us and
persecute us ? Surely that cannot be the case. Or when he says, "A
new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another ; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John xiii. 34), is
" the exhortation emasculated, and its whole pith gone,'' if we should
suppose that he does not mean that his disciples should love one another
only, and if we should infer that he himself loved others besides his
apostles ? Nay : for he himself commands us in his law of love, to love
our neighbour, whoever he may be, as we love ourselves, and he himself
fulfilled the law (Matt. xxii. 39 ; iii. 15.) When he said, again, that
he loved the church of Philadelphia, (Rev. iii. 9), does his expression
mean that he loved that church only ? Or when he averred that " the
Father loveth the Son," (John v. 20), does the declaration imply that
he loveth the Son only ? Or when the Psalmist says that God " gives
his beloved sleep" (Ps. cxxvii. 2), and that God "hath givenmeat unto
them that fear him" (Ps. cxi. 5), does he mean that no others but these
get sleep and meat from God ? Surely not. And as little is it to be
supposed, that when the apostle says that Christ " loved the church and
gave himself for it," he meant that he loved none other, and that he
declined to give himself " a ranBom for all."

Universality of the Atonement. 53
De. Candlish's Appeal to Acts xx. 28.
" Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves," said Paul to the elders of
the church of Ephesus, "and to all the flock over the which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he
hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts xx. 28).
Dr. Candlish says that "it is immaterial, for his present purpose,
whether the church is here called the church of God or the church of
Christ." (p. 115.) In this we agree with him. And, we may add,
it is immaterial for almost any practical or theological purpose. But
when he asserts that " the reading which would substitute ' Christ,' or
' the Lord,' for ' God,' wants manuscript authority, and has too much
of the appearanee of an alteration introduced to evade the argument for
our Lord's supreme divinity," he makes two mistakes ; one as to a
matter of fact, and another, as to a matter of appearance. He mis
takes as to a matter of. fact. For while it is the case that the reading
"Christ" is destitute of manuscript authority; it is not true that the
reading " the Lord" is in the same predicament. Indeed, so far as the
authority referred to is concerned, it is very decidedly in favour of the
reading. For, not to take mere cursive manuscripts into account, " the
Lord " is the reading which is given in A C D E ; whereas the reading
" God" has no high diplomatic authority at all except B, the celebrated
Vatican manuscript. And hence the reading "Lord" is approved of
not only by Griesbach, but also by Tischendorf, Lachmarm, and Tregelles.
But if this reading, notwithstanding the preponderance of manuscrip-
tural authority, should be regarded as having " the appearance of an
alteration" of the original text, it must, we apprehend, be considered as
introduced, not "to evade the argument for our Lord's supreme divinity,"
as Dr. Candlish supposes, but to efface an apparent proof of the theory
of the Patripassians. For the -passage is capable ot being wrested for
the support of the idea that it was the Godhead which suffered on
Calvary. But passing this, let us look at the theological argument in
behalf of an atonement for the elect alone, which Dr. Candlish erects
upon the text : —
'' If the atonement is of universal extent, — if the blood of Christ was shed for all
mankind, — if in consequence all mankind, being included within the atonement, are
purchased by God with that blood, — if, in short, the transaction indicated by the pur
chase is a transaction common to all the race, and not peculiar to a peculiar seed, on
whose behalf the Lord has a peculiar purpose of saving grace ; — I cannot see how the
apostle could refer to it as investing with any particular sacredness and value the
Cburch which pastors have to feed, or as imparting any peculiar delicacy to the
office which they have to execute, as if it implied the handling, or dealing with, the
Lord's peculiar treasure." (pp. 116, 117.)
But, for our part, we cannot see that the sacredness and value which
invest any community of souls, in their relation to Christ, is at all
lessened or disenhanced by the fact that his love is so great that it ex
tends beyond themselves. We do not prize the sun-light the less that
it shines on others besides ourselves. We do not the less admire the
starry sky because, it impartially over-canopies all. And we do not
adore and revere and love our Heavenly Father the less, that he is the
Father of the spirits of all flesh, and feels for others in his heart the
same parental tender mercy which he cherishes toward ourselves.

54 Vindication of the
Dr. Candlish, however, not only errs in supposing the value of the
atonement to be lessened in the ratio of its extension, he likewise mistakes
the meaning of the word translated " purchased." He supposes that it
is equivalent to " bought." And, indeed, in the context which pre
cedes the quotation which we have made from him, he uses the terms
interchangeably. But they are by no means interchangeable. The
word "purchased," indeed, was used by Wiclif, in his translation of the
passage; and it has descended from him through all the subsequent
English versions. But the term is to be understood in its archaic
sense, -^-that sense, according to which it denotes, as Judge Blackstone
says, " any method of acquiring an estate otherwise than by descent."
( Commentaries, i. 3). The original term is, in accordance with this
old import of the word "purchase," admirably translated in the
Vulgate "acquired" (acquisivit), although the Latin language could
not fully express in one word the pregnancy of its import. It means
" acquired (or gained, or won, or earned) for oneself." The Lord
" acquired for himself the church by his own blood." The same
verb occurs in only one other passage of the New Testament ; and that
passage is such as to demonstrate that the word could not mean " to
buy." It is 1 Tim. iii. 13, — "For they that have used the office of a
deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness
in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." " They purchase a good degree
to themselves," — "they gain or win it for themselves." The cognate
noun occurs in 1 Thess v. 9, — " God hath not appointed us to wrath,
but to obtain (to the acquiring or gaining for ourselves of) salvation by our
Lord Jesus Christ." It occurs also in Heb. x. 39, " We are of them
that believe to the saving (to the acquiring for ourselves, to the
winning) of the soul." The apostle then, in the passage appealed to
by Dr. Candlish, exhorted the Ephesian elders to act the part of
faithful shepherds to the church of the divine Lord, over which they
were set, and "which he acquired for himself by his own blood," —
which he gained and won for himself through means of the sacrificial
offering of his blood. Churches, in so far as they are Christ's peculium,
or constitute his " peculiar people," in so far as they are a " possession "
of our Lord which is peculiarly his own, are rewards of the atonement. It
is in this sense that they are acquired by rirm through his blood. And it
is thus sufficiently evident that Acts xx. 28 describes, not the intrinsic
nature or extent, but only one of the consequences, of the atonement.
And far indeed is it from containing anything which would justify the
notion that it was only for the church of the Ephesians, or for any
church, or for all churches, that Christ shed his blood.

A Clttstee of Expeessions Appealed to.
Dr. Candlish has now nearly exhausted his Scripture evidence in
behalf of his theory of an atonement for the elect alone. But ere he
actually concludes his appeal, he refers cursorily to a few additional
texts. He says : —
" How often are the believing people of Christ described and addressed by such
terms as the following : 'Bought with a price' (1 Cor. vi. 20),— « Eedeemed with

Universality of the Atonement. 55
his precious blood ' (1 Peter i, 18, 19), — ' His purchased possession ' (Eph. i. 14),—
' His peculiar ' or purchased ' people ' (Titus ii. 14). Expressions like these connect
the death of Christ with them ;— and not with them viewed as a part of the human
family, sharing a benefit common to the whole ; but with them as distinguished from
the human family as a whole." (pp. 118, 119.)
" They are his bought, purchased, redeemed people, for this, and for no other
reason whatever, — because he has died for them. They, and their fellow-believers,
from the beginning to the end of time, are the ' many,' for whom, as he himself
says, and not for all, he came ' to give his life a ransom' (Mark x. 45). They be
long to him because, dying for them, he has bought them." (p. 120.)
Dr. Candlish is not so liberal as Calvin. For Calvin, in his com
ment on the passage Mark x. 45, says that the word " many " is used
by our Lord " not definitely for a certain number," but indefinitely for
" all others, as distinguished from himself." And in his comment on
the kindred expression in Heb. ix. 28 — " Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many, ' ' Calvin repeats his liberality, and says that many is
used for all. He was right. The word " many," in both of the passages
referred to, is employed qualitatively. It represents the numerousness of
the " all." For in estimating the glory of the work of Christ, it is ever
to be borne in mind that " all " the persons of the human race are the
objects embraced within the great atonement, and that all these persons
are far from being few. Unlike " all" the persons of the Godhead, for
instance, they are emphatically many.
The other passages referred to by Dr. Candlish do not seem to have
been felicitously selected.
(1,) The first "ye were bought with a price" (1 Cor. vi. 20) is
applicable to all men, just "because Christ died for them." And on
the ground of its truth, we may say to every man, and we should
never lose the opportunity when we possess it, of saying to any man,
"therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are
God's." God has acquired through the atonement of Christ a new right
of possession to every man's soul and body.
(2.) The second passage "ye were redeemed from your vain con
versation received by tradition from your fathers, with the precious
blood of Christ" (1 Pet. i. 18, 19), refers to sanctification. It denotes
that subjective redemption or moral deliverance, which, though ever
grounded on the objective ransom by which all men were "bought
with a price," is yet conditioned on faith. (See ver. 22.)
(3.) The third passage, "until the redemption of the purchased
possession" (Eph. i. 14) is quoted by mistake. For the word rendered
"purchased possession" means "acquired possession," and does not of
itself indicate, as we have shewn in our remarks on Acts xx. 28, that
the possession has been "bought with a price." It refers not tothe
impetration, but to one of the contingent applications, of the atone
ment. And., in order to its realization, the persuasive work of the
Spirit and the voluntary intervention of faith are indispensable.
(4.) The fourth passage is Tit. ii. 14-^-" Who gave himself for us,
that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works." Dr. Candlish explains the
phrase "peculiar," in the expression "peculiar people," as meaning
"purchased." But he is again mistaken. For though the precise
import of the word is somewhat difficult of .determination (see Alford, &c.)>

56 Vindication of the
certainly it does not mean " purchased." It seems to denote a people
"acquired" by our Saviour as "peculiarly his own." And though the
acquisition has very particular relation to the atonement, as its ground
or grand meritorious cause, it is nevertheless contingent on the inter-
venience of faith. The apostle's language informs us that it is believers,
and believers as redeemed and purified, and zealous of good works, who
constitute our Lord's acquired and "peculiar people."
The four passages commented on seem to have been thrown together
by Dr. Candlish rather loosely, and as with a pitchfork. For the first
is applicable to all men. And the other three, as is obvious either from
their contents or from their contexts, refer to what is consequent on
the intervenience of faith. They do not indicate in the least what is
unconditionally effected or secured by the bare fact of the atonement.

De. Candlish's Concluding Appeal to Isai. im. 5 and Rev. v. 9.
Dr. Candlish concludes his long chapter on what he regards as the
direct Scriptural evidence in favour of the Calvinistic theory of the
atonement, by referring, in the following terms, to Isai. liii. 5 and
Rev. v. 9, —
" The language of penitential grief put, by prophetic anticipation, into the mouth
of the Church, implies that, as redeemed and bought by him, she claims him, in his
death, as her own : ' He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are
healed ' (Isa. liii. 5). And if we pass from the present scene of trial to the future
world of blessedness and glory, how unmeaning, upon any theory of a universal atone
ment, does the song of the countless multitude before the throne become ! For the
burden of that song is the Lamb's right of property in them, as bought by himself and
for himself, with a price : ' Thou hast redeemed us,' — thou hast purchased us, ' with
thy blood' (Rev. v. 9). Is it their being redeemed or purchased by his blood in
common with all mankind everywhere that they thus gratefully acknowledge ? Let
them give the reply themselves : Thou hast purchased us to God — ' Thou hast re
deemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation." (pp. 121, 122.)
As to the former of these passages, the one from Isaiah, there is
some difficulty in determining the precise translation which should be
given to the last clause. It is not literally rendered in our version.
And indeed, as there is an idiomatic phrase employed, it would not be
easy to give a precise transcript of its import. Perhaps it should be
translated thus, — " and by his stripes there is healing for us." But
we are willing to accept our English version as it stands. And we are
also willing, notwithstanding some particular views which we entertain
in reference to the dramatic distribution of the oracle, to admit that it is
the church universal, the general assembly of first-born believers which
is represented as saying of our Saviour, " He was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of
our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed." All
this we are willing to admit. But we are really most unwillina- to
admit that the church at the very time when she is realizing at once
her sinfulness and her blessedness, and " claiming Christ as her own "
should cast a glance of stint-grace upon the rest of mankind, and insist
on a monopoly of the favour of him, who is called " the Saviour of the

Universality of the Atonement. 57
world." We cannot admit that, while rejoicing in the beams of the
Sun of righteousness, and saying "they are for me," she should con
dition her joy on the selfish assurance that the heavenly light will not
shine except on her own little spot of ground. No. She knows that
her light is the light not of a private rush, but of the public and
universal Sun. It is the " true Light" of heaven, the great Luminary
which " lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John i. 9.) It
would be unseemly, we think, if the church, after slaking her own
thirst with " the water of life," should insist on gorging herself with
the whole "river of God," so that nothing of the reviving stream
might flow past her to the millions who are perishing for lack. It is
far from being the case, we apprehend, that any believers, or that all
believers, so claim Christ as to say, — "he was wounded for our
transgressions only; he was bruised for our iniquities only; the
chastisement of only our peace was upon him, so that only we can be
healed by his stripes."
In Rev. v. 9, again, — " Thou hast redeemed (or bought) us to God,
by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,"
the word "bought" as standing in relation to the preposition " out of"
is evidently used in the manner called "pregnant" by grammarians.
It carries within itself another, but intimately related, idea, besides the
one which it outwardly expresses. This pregnancy, or concealed
germinancy of construction, is common. We read, for example, in Luke
iv. 38, that Christ "arose out of the synagogue." Even there the
word " arose" in its relation to the preposition "out of" is used preg
nantly: for the obvious meaning is that he "arose (and then went)
out of the synagogue." We read in 2 Cor. xi. 3, "I fear lest by any
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." The
word " corrupted," in its relation to " from," is also used pregnantly ;
and the full idea evidently is, " corrupted (and thence seduced) from'the
simplicity that is in Christ." In Rom. ix. 3, the apostle says " I
could wish (or, I used to wish) that I myself were accursed, from
Christ." The concealed germinancy is obvious ; " that I myself were
accursed (and thus for ever separated) from Christ." In Hebrews x. 22,
again, the words " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con
science " occur. But the term " sprinkled " is manifestly pregnant.
The entire expression means " having our hearts sprinkled (and thus
cleansed) from an evil conscience." And in Hebrews v. 7, it is said of
our Saviour, who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and sup
plications, that he was "heard in that he feared," or literally "heard
from that he feared," that is, " heard (and thereafter delivered) from that
he feared." So in the 22nd Psalm, 21st verse, we read, " Thou hast
heard me from the horns of the unicorns," that is, " Thou hast heard
(and thereupon saved) me from the horns of the unicorns."
The expression in Rev. v. 9 is obviously of the same description.
" Thou hast bought (and brought) us to God, by thy blood, out of every
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." The preposition " out
of" indicates that something more than the mere payment of the price
is involved. The end desired in the payment is gained. The inter-
venient faith, on which, in accordance with human free-agency, the

58 Vindication of the
realization of the end was conditioned, has occurred. And the believers
" are brought to God" (1 Pet. iii. 18) through the merit of the blood
of the Lamb. They are bought and brought, they are bought off, " out
of every kindred and tongue and people and nation." Thus understood,
the song of the glorified seems to us to be instinct with all the holy joy
and gratitude which are befitting, and to be at the same time entirely
divested of all apparent heartlessness toward their unsaved fellows, whom
they were commanded, while on earth, to love as they loved themselves.
This heartlessness is apt to be suggested when the words are interpreted
as a claim of monopoly in the atonement of our Lord. For assuredly if
the atonement was undertaken and wrought out for the elect alone, it
was no fault of their poor unsaved fellows if they were not included
within its embrace. And their exclusion would be no right or righteous
ground, either of actual and explicit, or of virtual and involved, exulta
tion.

Result of the Examination of the Selpttjee Evidence.
We have followed Dr. Candlish from stage to stage of his inductive
tour. For the purpose of candid observation, we have put ourselves,
at each halting place, in his own peculiar position. We have looked
at each pToof-text from his own particular stand-point. We have not,
moreover, gone out of his route, to carry our appeal to passages which
he has not chosen to cite.
The result of our examination is sufficiently decided and decisive.
Nowhere do we find it said in Scripture that Christ died for the elect
alone. Nowhere is it said that he died for the church alone, or for
the sheep alone, or for believers alone, or for the saved alone Nowhere
do we Aid it said that Christ did not die for the world, that he did
not die for the whole world, that he did not die for all men, that he did
not die for every man, that he did not die for those who ultimately
perish. But in passage piled upon passage we find it expressly
affirmed that he is "the Saviour of the world," that he "gave his
flesh for the life of the world," that he is " the propitiation for the sins
of the whole world," that he " died for all," that he " gave himself a
ransom for all," that he "tasted death for every man," and that he
" bought even them who deny him and bring upon themselves swift
destruction." If such express and explicit declarations, uncounter-
acted and unqualified by any contrary affirmations, suffice not to
establish the universality of the atonement, what language, we would
ask, would Dr. Candlish himself deem sufficient to be truly affirmative
of universality ?
The Divine Spirit seems, indeed, to have exercised a peculiar provi
dence in having the Scriptures besprinkled with almost every con
ceivable variety of phrase which would unequivocably assert that there
is not a man under heaven for whom Christ failed to die. And when
all the phrases are combined, their united evidence in behalf of an
actual universality of the atonement seems to be as complete as heart
could wish, or as imagination itself could conceive. For lest it should
be supposed that the word " world " is not sufficiently definite, the

Universality of the Atonement. 59
more unmistakeable expression " the whole world " is thrown in. But
lest even that expression, susceptible as it is of being applied both to
the terrestrial abode of man and to the men who occupy the abode,
should be regarded as not altogether beyond doubt or cavil, the phrase
" all men " is once and again and again superadded. And yet this
sufficed not, as it would appear, to satisfy the Divine Spirit. He seems
to have wished greater fulness still. And. lest, any one should lose
himself in the generality of the word " all," or should be unable to
find himself in its unindividualizing universality, there is a supplemental
expression employed which carries the blessing of atonement home to
the very door of every particular soul. It is the expression " every
man." Surely this is sufficiently explicit. It is. But yet lest any
one should happen by some spiritual crotchet, or by some dialectic
quirk, to reason himself out of the ample range of such gloriously
open-armed phrases, he is assured that for even those who may
"perish" "Christ died." Yea, the Lord has actually "bought"
those "who deny him, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
It is true that we have found many passages in which believers
themselves claim for themselves, or in which it is claimed in their be
half, that Christ died for them. It could not well be otherwise. For
if Christ died for aLl, he must have died for believers.
It is also true that we find many passages in which believers trace
their salvation to their Saviour's propitiation, and with confidence anti
cipate on its ground, that no good thing, really needed by them, will
be withheld from them by their heavenly Father. And- it could not
well be otherwise. For while the great Father is the only Efficient
Cause, the propitiation is the only meritorious cause, of Balvation. And
it is so full of meritoriousness, that when once it is embraced, all else
is sure, and the whole fulness of the blessings of the Godhead. is either
actually poured out in the present, or divinely promised and pledged
for the future. As the propitiation is in Jesus, so salvation is in the
propitiation. Whosoever embraces the latter, receives the former.
And. whosoever embraces Jesus receives the whole. But it is necessary
to embrace Jesus. The door of the heart must be thrown open to him
as he knocks. He must be welcomed into the soul, and received into
the innermost chamber of the being. He must be " Christ in us, the
hope of glory." He must, in other words, be the innermost object of
our faith. He must be unfeignedly " believed in." He must be un-
feignedly " believed on." For it is only hewho believeth in and on him,
that "hath," and "shall have," everlasting life. "By grace we are
saved through faith." There is a link or clasp of man's free-agency
required, ere the fulness, which is in the Saviour, be poured into the
emptiness of the sinner.

De. Candlish's Appendage to the dibeci ScEiPir/EE Aegttment.
Dr. Candlish adds what seems to be two sermons to his pile of
Scripture evidence in reference to the extent of the atonement. The
sermons are on Heb. ix, 13, 14, — "For if the blood of > bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to

60 . Vindication of the
the purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot te God,
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.' He
makes two chapters out of them. The first he entitles, "Examination
of^ Heb. ix. 13, 14,— reality and efficacy of Old Testament sacrifices of
atonement." The second is entitled, " Examination of Heb. ix. 13,
14, — the argument 'a fortiori' for the atoning efficacy of the sacrifice
of Christ." The sermons are in many respects admirable. But as they
do not contribute much to the argument of the volume, we shall pass
them by, with the following miscellaneous observations : —
(1.) We are at one with Dr. Candlish in maintaining the reality and
efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices of atonement. We believe that
these sacrifices did "sanctify to the purifying of the flesh." Besides
subserving evangelically typical purposes, they were the fitly appointed
ordinances, whereby important theocratic privileges were enjoyed, and
severe theocratic penalties were averted.
(2.) When Dr. Candlish tries to explain in what way the Old Testa
ment sacrifices " sanctified," he says, —
"There are two words, in both of the original languages of the Bible, rendered in
our translation ' holy ;' the one meaning a certain moral frame of mind, or a certain
moral and spiritual disposition, such as piety, godliness, goodness, graciousness ; the
other marking rather the position, or standing, or destination of any person or thing,
— considered especially as recognised, consecrated, set apart, to sustain some sacred
character and fulfil some sacred function or use. It is with the last of these two words
that the sanctification here spoken of is connected. It implies, not a change of moral
nature, but a change in one's standing before God." (pp. 127, 128.)
There is truth in the concluding observation. The sanctification re
ferred to was outward, not inward. But his general remarks on the
word " holy " are unguarded, and to some extent incorrect. There are,
strictly speaking, three Greek words rendered "holy" in the New
. Testament. And of the two, both Greek and Hebrew, to which Dr.
Candlish refers, the one in each language which he represents as " mark
ing rather the position, or standing, or destination of any person or
thing," than " a certain moral frame of mind," is nevertheless the term
which is almost invariably applied to God himself, and to his " Holy
Spirit." The Greek term, moreover, is far more frequently used, than
the other, to designate " the moral frame of mind " which characterizes
saints. It is in fact the term which is translated " saints." And it is
the term which occurs in both clauses of these most solemn words of God :
" Be ye holy, for I am holy." It occurs above two hundred times in
the New Testament, whereas, the other term, which is alleged to apr
propriate to itself the idea of "a certain moral frame of mind," occurs
only some eight times in all. Dr. Candlish has quite overstated the distinc
tion. Indeed, he has, we imagine, misapprehended it as a whole, and
failed to grasp the fundamental conception of the Hebrew and Greek
vocables which are applied to God.
(3.) When he passes from the consideration of the Old Testament
sacrifices to that of Christ, which is said by the inspired writer to
"purge" the believer's "conscience from dead works," he makes,
amid many excellent observations, the following remark, "if the blood
of Christ purge our conscience from dead works, we are not now guilty
criminals; our conscience is not now burdened." (p. 158.) The last

Universality of the Atonement. 61
affirmation is, in one aspect of it at least, a glorious evangelical truth.
The burden of unforgiven sin is off. The burden of condemnation is
gone. And a still heavier burden is also removed. The sad burden of
the unnatural love of sin. But the former affirmation is, assuredly,
inconsistent with truth. For guilt and criminality, when once incurred,
are facts which can never be obliterated.
(4.) Dr. Candlish finds a difficulty in giving an exact representation
of the principle, on which the blessings involved in atonement, are
transferred to the persons for whom the sacrifice is available. He
speaks of the " identification" of the Old Testament worshipper with
the Old Testament victim, and represents it as effected by " the
sprinkling of blood or of ashes on the body." (p. 161.) But he should
have known that there is no case but one on record, in which blood
was sprinkled on persons. And he should also have borne in mind
that thorough identification was secured in another manner altogether.
The worshippers, whether individual persons, or the whole collective
congregation, brought their sacrifices and presented them, and confessed
their sins over them, and symbolically transferred them to the head of the
victim. (5.) It is, however, in relation to the identification of the elect with
Christ, that Dr. Candlish finds most difficulty; especially as he
evidently desires to exclude, as far as possible, from these practical
discourses, the word " elect." He partly gets over his difficulty, by
himself personating an elect person, and saying " The identification is
of Christ with me, and of me with Christ." He continues thus, —
"The eternal Spirit, by whom he offered himself, makes me a part of him in his
doing so. By the eternal Spirit preparing for him, not only a body in the Virgin's
womb, but a body in the womb of ' the Church of the first-born,' Christ offered
himself — himself in his body natural, himself in his body mystical — without spot
unto God." (p. 161 )
But the idea here thrown out regarding the preparation of the
mystical body of Christ, is certainly, in the highest degree, grotesque,
and even absurd. The doctor must have been strangely perplexed, ere
he could have given expression to it. "A body in the womb of the
church of the first-born " ! And yet the church, in whose womb this
mystical body is said to be prepared, is herself the body ! The church
herself is thus prepared in the womb of herself to be Christ's mystical
body ! What an involution of impossibilities !
But although Dr. Candlish labours hard to make out that a mystical
body was provided for the Saviour in his identification with the elect,
before the actual occurrence of their faith, yet the notion wont work
itself into shape. And hence he has at length to say, " Into that body
of Christ — into Christ himself — the eternal Spirit shuts up me,
believing." And he adds, in evident relief, — " The victim and the
worshipper — Christ and I — are now identified ; identified by the eternal
Spirit." (p. 161.) Mark the word "now." It is after the occurrence
of belief that the identification is realized. Dr. Candlish is right at
last. Until belief occurs, the individual is not a member of the mystical
body of Christ. So long as a man is an unbeliever, he is out of Christ.
It is only when a man believes, that he is "in Christ." This is truth ;
and exceedingly important truth. But it destroys for ever the dominant

62 Vindication of the
idea which animates Dr. Candlish's book, and which he desired to
establish in these two discourses, the idea, namely, that Christ's death
" considered simply in itself, and with reference to its own essential
nature" (p. 124), secures the salvation of all the elect. It cannot be
the case, it now turns out, that the salvation of the elect is thus secured.
For until they individually believe on Christ, they are not members of
his body, and hence they were not, before their faith, crucified with
him in his atoning death. The intervenience of faith is needed in order
to such identification as secures salvation.
(6.) Dr. Candlish, while holding that Christ died for the elect alone, and
that none but the elect are able to avail themselves of his death, can
yet preach the gospel in the following manner : —
" It opens the way into the holy of holies, — the holiest of all ; not for the High
Priest alone, but for all the people ; not once a year, but once for all. Come enter in,
all of you ; at once, and once for all ; never to be cast out again.
"See! The veil is rent in twain. The inner glory of the house of God is disclosed.
There is the Holy One, shining forth from between the cherubim, over the mercy-seat,
pacified toward you ; for the High Priest has entered in, not with the blood of others,
but with his own. See the heavens opened, and Jesus at the right hand of God.
Look ! He beckons to you. He invites you to draw near. Hark ! He calls, — ' Come
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ' (Matt. xi.
28). " Nay, look again ; open your eyes and see. That gracious, glorious High Priest
comes forth himself, — he is ever coming forth, — to take you by the hand and lead you
in. He is near you now, that divine and human priest and victim in one, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God. Is not that eternal
Spirit even now, through the word, showing you this Christ as thus near to you .'
Hot arrayed in awful pomp and state ; not thus is he near you ; — but meek and lowly
in heart, as in the day when he took a little child into his arms ; clothed simply in
the pure white robe of his own righteousness, with which he is ready to clothe you.
" Sinner, whosoever thou art, I tell thee that this Christ is come out from that holy
place, for thee, this day. It is I, he says ; be not afraid. Behold my hands, my feet,
my side. He would carry thee, this very day, even now, in with him into that rest of
his. No guilt of thine need hinder thee, for his blood cleanses from it all. No law
can challenge thee, for he answers for all. Wilt thou not suffer him ? Arise ! awake!
' The Master is come, and calleth for thee.' The way into the holiest is open. Every
claim is met ; every just demand is satisfied. God is waiting to be gracious ; his re
conciled countenance is lifted up upon thee. Ah ! why hesitate, poor sinner ? In
with thee at once, and once for all. In, I say. In, with thy living, loving Saviour.
He wills that thott shouldest be with him where he is." (pp. 163, 164.)
On one side of our heart we feel the greatest delight while reading
these words. They are true words in themselves considered. And they
meet the wants of souls which are thirsting for salvation. But on
anotherside of our heart, the words occasion us the deepest distress.
For as used by Dr. Candlish, they are suspiciously stretched out with
a sort of supple and subtile elasticity far beyond the limits of the ideas
which he actually entertains. His words are, "Sinner, whosoever
thou art, I tell thee that Christ is come out for thee, this day: " and
yet he believes and maintains that the majority of sinners are non-elect
and reprobate, and that Christ bought them not for salvation, but for
damnation. His words are, " Christ would carry thee, this very day,
even now, in with him into that rest of his : " and yet he believes
and maintains that it was only for the predestinated seed that his soul
travailed. His words are, " No guilt of thine need hinder thee, for
his blood cleanses from it all " : and yet he believes and maintains that

Universality of the Atonement. 63
not a drop of that blood was shed for any but those who are shut up to
faith and ultimate salvation. His words are, — " No law can challenge
thee, for he answers for all " : and yet he believes and maintains that
Christ answers only for those who constitute his mystical body, or
elected church. His words are, — " God is waiting to be gracious ; his
reconciled countenance is lifted up upon thee " : and yet he believes and
maintains that God is altogether unreconciled toward any but the
unconditionally redeemed. His words are, — " Ah, why hesitate, poor
sinner ? In with thee at once, and 'once for all. In, I say. In with
thy living, loving Saviour : " and yet he believes and maintains that
none but the elect can be admitted in, or has any ability to go in. His
words are, — " thy Saviour wills that thou shouldest be with him,
where he is " : but he makes a distinction of wills, and believes and
maintains that Christ does not really will, with any will that ever did a
soul any good for eternity, to have any with him where he is, except
his own elect.
When the words which Dr. Candlish employs in addressing the
sinner, are compared with the ideas which lie behind them, is not the
comparison apt to fling in among our thoughts the painful suggestion
of a kind of verbal legerdemain ? Is not one prone to think of a kind of
jugglery of phraseology ? Is there not startled up within the mind the
recollection of those feats of diplomacy, which turn on the principle
so naively enunciated by Talleyrand, that the use of words is not to reveal,
but to conceal, one's thoughts ?
(7.) But notwithstanding the free proclamation of the gospel with
which Dr. Candlish winds up his two discourses, he says at the com
mencement of them, —
" I hope it is by this time apparent that I regard the inquiry into the extent of the
atonement as important, chiefly in the view of its hearing on the value, virtue, and
efficacy of the atonement. Apart from that consideration, the controversy might be
left to the schoolmen. What makes the question, Por whom did Christ die ? an
urgent, vital, and practical question, for the spiritual man as well as the theologian,
is, that it involves the question, What did his death actually effect ?" (p. 123.)
And yet we should have thought, that the inquiry into the extent
of the atonement is transcendently important in other two respects.
It has (1st) a momentous bearing on the method of preaching the gospel
to the unawakened, and of guiding the awakened into the pathway of
peace and joy and hope and holiness. And it has (2ndly) a vital rela
tion to the character of God as a Being who is Love, and Love to all,
and who, as represented in men's theologies, should be infinitely above
the suspicion of insincerity as to his professions, and of injustice as to
his dealings.
(8.) Dr. Candlish says, —
" There is a well-known logical maxim, Quo major extensio, minor comprehemio, —
the wider the range of any term, objectively — in its application to persons or things,
that may be the objects of it— the narrower must be its import subjectively — the less
can it include in itself of meaning or of matter. Enlarge the sphere to be embraced
within its outer domain, as it were, and you must proportionally limit the amount of
its own inherent contents. It must mean less, in proportion as it takes in more ; the
greater the number with reference to whom it is to be defined, the less must you put
into the definition of it. The maxim is to the point here._ It is because the exten
sion of the atonement to all mankind limits its comprehensiveness, as regards what it

64 Vindication of the
is to be held as actually affecting and securing for any, that, in common with & great
body of evangelical divines, I am apt to shrink from such an extension of it." (pp.
123, 124.)
It is true that in regard to logical notions, as expressed bynames, the
intensive or comprehensive is in the inverse ratio of the extensive The
notion of an individual and concrete object comprehends far more particu
lar notes, than the notion of the species to which it belongs. _ And the
notion of the species to which it belongs is more comprehensive, as re
gards notes, than the notion of the genus under which it is ruled.
And the notion of the highest of all genera, the genus of simple being,
is by necessity the least of all in its comprehension of notes. It is a
notion with only one note. In its extensive relation, it spreads out to
infinity ; in its intensive, it tapers to a point.
But the notion of the atonement of Jesus, is no abstract notion. It
has nothing in it of the nature of genus or species. It is the notion
of a concrete reality, of an individual fact. It belongs to the region
of realism, as distinguished from nominalism. And thus whatever be
the number of persons to whom it stands related, there is no scope
whatever for the application to it, in that relation, of the logical maxim
referred to by Dr. Candlish ; no more than for its application to such
realities as light, or the Bible, or God.
The contents of the notion of light, for instance, or the contents of
light's actual essence, are not at all affected by the number of the indi
viduals on whom it shines. The light would not be richer though it
were to shine only on an elected few. The contents too of the notion of
the Bible, or of its actual essence, are not effected by the number of
persons who peruse it and are blessed by it. It would be no enhance
ment to the holy book to be confined only to an elected few of mankind ;
and there will be no attenuation of its blessing when it is communicated
to all. The notion of God, too, is assuredly not at all impoverished by
the multiplication of the beings who stand related to him as his creatures.
There would not be more of true and glorious divinity in him, were
there but few to call him Father. Neither would there be a thinning
out of the moral glory of his Being, though all immensity were replenished
with the conscious objects of his love.
And so is it with the atonement. Its essence is altogether irrespec
tive of the extent of its relation to sinners. If it have relation to but
a few, it is still nothing more than an atonement. If it have relation to
all, it is still nothing less than an atonement. No impoverishment can
happen to it by the expansion of the sphere of its extent. No enrich
ment can accrue to it, no more than would accrue to the light of heaven,
or to the fulness of the Bible, or to the divinity of our God, by narrow
ing the diameter of its circumference, and excluding from its range the
great masses of mankind.
The atonement is a finished fact. It was finished eighteen hundred
years ago. And even though it should have relation only to an uncon
ditionally elected number, it could never be, even to these, an atone
ment plus faith, or an atonement plus peace, an atonement plus conversion
of heart, an atonement plus perseverance, an atonement plus final and
everlasting glory. Faith, peace, conversion of heart, perseverance, and
oelestial glory are not and never can be parts of the essence of atone-

Universality of the Atonement. 65
ment. They belong to the domain of the mind of the sinner, and not
to the domain of the soul of the Saviour.
It was a logical blunder in Dr. Candlish, to attempt to apply
to the rival notions of the atonement the logical maxim which
he quotes. The atonement being a fact, the only legitimate way of
reaching a just notion of it, either as regards its nature or as regards its
extent, is the examination of the historic documents in which the fact
is described. It does not at all afford a case for the ascertainment of
truth by the dialectic application of logical formulas. And to attempt to
determine its extent by the introduction of such formulas, is an
attempt to resuscitate the middle-age Aristotelianism in antagonism
to modern Baconianism. But if Dr. Candlish will go back to the dark
ness of the schoolmen in his search after truth ; if he will deductively
deal with logical formulas, instead of prosecuting a true Baconian in
duction, let him understand his implements, and learn how to wield
them. For the logical maxim Which he quotes, comes under the law
of necessity. It is necessarily true. When once its applicability is ad
mitted, there is no possible or conceivable exception to its application.
In notions, the intensive not only may,but must, be in the inverse ratio
of the extensive. The necessity is the same as that which determines that
the radii of a circle must all be of equal length. But if Dr. Candlish
will contend for the application of the maxim to the notions in dispute,
he must be prepared to hold not only that the one notion holds the re
lation of a genus or a species to the other, but also that an atonement
for a few must be, as a matter of absolute necessity, intensely richer than
an atonement for many ; and that indeed- it is beyond the powers of the
human mind to conceive that an atonement, if limited to the elect,
should yet be connected with contingency of faith and consequent con
tingency of everlasting salvation. If however Dr. Candlish will thus
reason, he will find that in reality he has stepped out of the sphere of
the notion of atonement altogether, and walked over into the sphere of
the- notion of philosophical necessity. He is no longer contending for
anything else than universal fate.
An Admitted Univeesal Aspect of the Ceoss.
Having established to his own satisfaction that the atonement was
" undertaken and accomplished for the elect alone, or, in other words,
that they for whom Christ died are those only who shall infallibly be
saved," Dr. Candlish proceeds to admit that his doctrine " seems to have
an adverse look towards the world at large, and to embarrass the free pro
clamation of the gospel as a message of mercy to all." (p. 170.) And
he finds it therefore incumbent on him to propose the following
questions : —
" Has the cross of Christ no relation at all, of any sort, to all mankind universally,
whether elect or not ? If it has not, how is the aspect of universality, which in its
open exhibition undoubtedly belongs to it, to be explained ? If it has, of what sort
is the relation which it bears to all, as distinguished from the relation which it bears
to those who by means of it are actually saved i" (p. 171.)
Dr. Candlish answers his questions by admitting a double universality
in connection with the limited atonement. There is, he says, (1.) a

66 Vindication of the
universality of human responsibility, and (2) a universality of divine
forbearance. As to the first of these universalities, the doctor explains
himself as follows : —
" The condition of all men, in respect of present duty and ultimate responsibility, is
materially affected by the fact of such a sacrifice of atonement being provided, or, at
least, by the publication of that fact. It does not leave them where it finds them.
Those who have had the gospel preached to them, and have rejected it, incur an
immeasurably heavier load of guilt than if they had never heard the joyful sound. So
the Lord Jesus expressly and repeatedly testifies. And even as regards the heathen,
—in so far as God, in his providence, gives them any hint or any information on the
subiect of his long-suffering patience and love, in its connection with a mediatorial
economy of grace,— they also are on that account the more inexcusable._ In this sense
and to this effect the death of Christ has undoubtedly a universal bearing. Whoever
Comes to the knowledge of it, in proportion to the clearness of his knowledge ot it,
is the worse for it if he is not the better. His criminality is aggravated, if he refuses
to submit to God and be reconciled to God, upon the footing of those proposals of
peace for which the death of Christ opens up the way. So far the solemn truth in
this matter is plain enough." (pp. 171, 172.)
Yes. It is plain enough on the hypothesis which annihilates Dr.
Candlish's theory. It is plain enough on the hypothesis of an actual
universality of propitiation, and a consequent actual universality of the
possibility of salvation. But it is very far from being " plain enough "
that a universality of obligation on the part of men, to accept a limited
provision of mercy on the part of God, is consistent either with grace or
with justice. And to maintain that those to whom the gospel has been
preached, but to whom it never announced a provision of saving mercy
for themselves, and in reference to whom no saving mercy at all was
ever intended, will nevertheless "incur an immeasurably heavier load
of guilt than if they had never heard the joyful sound," seems to us to
be nothing less than the advocacy of a divine right to do wrong. But
though nothing less, it is something more. It is the advocacy of a
divine right to increase misery, under the shield of a hollow pretence of
increasing mercy. We cannot think that such pleading for the rights
of God will be acceptable to the Infinite : for " shall not the judge of
the earth do right ?"
A TJniveesal Dispensation of Foebeaeakce.
But the chief universality for which Dr. Candlish contends, and
which he labours to attach to the atonement for the elect alone, is a
universal dispensation of forbearance. He says, —
" It is, then, a great fact, that the death of Christ, or his work of obedience and
propitiation, has procured for the world at large, and for every individual, — the im-
Senitent and unbelieving as well as the ' chosen, and called, and faithful,'— certain
efinite, tangible, and ascertainable benefits ; — benefits, I mean, not nominal, but
real ; and not of a vague? but of a well defined and specific character. Of these the
first and chief, — that which in truth comprehends all the rest, — is the universal grant
to all mankind of a season of forbearance, — a respite or suspension of judgment,— a
day or dispensation of grace.
" This measure of forbearance on the part of God is uniformly represented in Scrip
ture as having reference to his plan of mercy and salvation, and as designed to be sub
servient to the carrying out of that plan. So the Apostle Paul speaks when he appeals
to the man who is reckoning on ultimate impunity and neglecting present grace :
' Despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering ; not
knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance i ' (Bom. ii. 4). To

Universality of the Atonement. 67
the same effect, and in the same connection, the Apostle Peter also testifies, — having
in his mind, as he tells us, this very saying of his ' beloved brother Paul,' — ' The Lord
is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to
us- ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance : '
upon which view of the motive and purpose of the divine forbearance he founds the
pointed exhortation, ' Account that the long-suffering of God is salvation ' (2 Peter
ni. 9-15)."— pp. 173, 174.
This measure of universal forbearance is represented by Dr. Candlish
as " implying that there is put in motion, a system of means, and
agencies, and influencies, fitted in their own nature to lead men to
God " (p. 174). It involves, he says, " those common operations of the
Spirit which are fitted to render the ordinances of God's word and
worship effectual to salvation " (p. 175). It has in it "gracipus means
and influences of a saving tendency " (p. 179). It is " granted in love
and meant for good " (p. 1 80). It embraces " a system of means fitted
to effect reconciliation" (p. 186). It is of "an undeniably gracious
character" (p. 194).
" Now, this surely is a real, definite, and substantial benefit, of a universal sort,
accruing to the human family at large, from there being an atoning sacrifice provided
and accepted by God. So far all men alike are interested in the death of Christ. This,
at all events, is a great fact, to be ever kept in view when we inquire concerning the
aspect which the atonement presents to all men alike, as an indication or discovery of
the mind and will of God. It establishes God's claim to be regarded by all men
as their benefactor in this matter ; to whom they are indebted for what is in itself a
good thing, and what is fitted to be a good thing to them, — for that ' long-suffering '
which may be, and ought to be, 'accounted salvation.' " (p. 187.)
Had it not been for this dispensation of universal forbearance, Dr.
Candlish says, on one page, that none of the human family would have
been " spared " even " for a season." " So far as appears from
Scripture, Christ's death is not less indispensable, as a condition of
any being spared for a season, than it is a condition of the ' great
multitude, which no man could number ' being everlastingly saved."
(p. 193.) But on another page he maintains, quite strenuously, the
contrary idea. He says, " My immediate object is to explain that we
are not to connect the sparing of the earth, and of men upon the earth,
in itself, and as a matter of course, with the death of Christ ; since,
even had there been no design of atonement and mediation at all, it
might still have been necessary, for the ends of righteous judgment,
that there should be time given for the whole race to increase and
multiply, and sin, and perish." (p. 186.) But of one thing he is quite
sure, and in this he does not contradict himself, that it is owing to the
dispensation of forbearance that infants die. Had there been no such
dispensation, " none would have been taken away in infancy." (p. 182.)
"Hence it follows," he says, "that the death of little children must be
held to be one of the fruits of redemption." (p. 183.) "It is on
account of the atonement that infants die." (p. 183.) And " in many
ways," he apprehends, "it may be inferred from Scripture that all
dying in infancy are elect, and are therefore saved." (p. 183.)
The chief foundation-stone of this entire theory of a large dispensa
tion of forbearanoe, in connection with the theory of a little atonement,
is quarried from an expression of the apostle Paul in Bom. iii. 25, 26.
We think that the apostle's expression has been misunderstood by Dr.
Candlish. But we do not deem it of moment to enter upon the discus-

68 Vindication of the
Bion of the passage. We are glad, in one respect, to find Dr. Candlish
advocating anything that seems to indicate mercy for the millions. And
we are sure that he is right in heart, and sound in judgment, when he
pleads for certain mercy to little innocents. But even in reference to
these innocents his plea, we fear, is inconsistent with his creed. For
when the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to " elect infants "
(chap. x. 3), the expression is manifestly partitive. And the doctrine
of the compilers regarding " predestination unto life " is such that Dr.
Candlish cannot legitimately suppose that there is" anything" in any
Creature, infant, or other, which could be " a condition or cause moving
God thereunto." And then too his notion that it is " on account of the
atonement that infants die " is so outre, that it must almost endanger,
to certain minds, the credibility and credit of the blessed doctrine which
it is in his heart to defend. If infants indeed were never subjected to
violent death, there might be pleas put in for the doctor's notion :
although even then the pleas would not be valid. But since it is the case
that many infants are actually murdered — what shall we say ? Is it
on account of the atonement that the murders are committed ? Is
murder "one of -the fruits of redemption"? And could there have
been no murder of infants if there had been no atonement ? " None,"
says Dr. Candlish, " would have been taken in infancy." Eeally it will
be "terrible" indeed if it be the case, not only that Christ bought
the reprobate for damnation, but also that he introduced the possibility
and the actual occurrence of the murder of the innocents.
But the entire scheme of a dispensation of forbearance, as held by Dr.
Candlish, is instinct with suicidal inconsistencies. And the central and
fatal inconsistency of the whole is this : — It involves the pretension of
the idea that sinners may be saved without a Saviour. Dr. Candlish
may stand amazed and even look aghast at the result. But it is in
disputable. He holds that the dispensation is " meant for good." It
has in it " means and influences of a saving tendency." It embraces
" means, agencies, and influences, fitted in their own nature to lead
men to God" and " to effect reconciliation." If " ought to be accounted
salvation by all men." It secures "those common influences of the
Spirit which are fitted to render the ordinances of God's worship
effectual unto salvation." How much then, we would ask, is there
in these means and influences ? Do they, or do they not, involve an
atonement for sins ? Will Dr. Candlish say that they do ? He can
not ; for the whole drift of his volume is to prove that the atonement
was "undertaken and accomplished for the elect alone." (p. 170.)
But if Dr. Candlish cannot say that they do ; if he must say that they
do not; then it is actually the case that he finds himself proclaim
ing that there are " means of a saving tendency," and fitted to make
ordinances "effectual unto salvation," and to "lead to reconciliation"
with God, which are yet entirely -without atonement. There are, in
other words, means of salvation without a Saviour ! And yet it is the
plying of these Christless means which constitutes the dispensation of
forbearance " a dispensation of grace," and which "establishes God's
claim to be regarded by all men as their benefactor" ! What next ?

Universality of the Atonement. 69
Dr. Candlish on God's Double Will.
Dr. Candlish contends that, in connection with the universal dis
pensation of forbearance, " the death of Christ is to all men universally,
and to every individual alike, a manifestation of the character, or name,
or nature of God, and of his plan of mercy." (p. 195.)' There is a
sense in which his words are true, and even grandly true. But still it
must ever be borne in mind that the " plan of mercy " which is
manifested, is expressly restricted by Dr Candlish " to the men which
the Father gave to Christ out of the world," and in which none but
the elect have either part or lot. The manifestation of this i3 not
eminently fitted, we should suppose, " to stamp an undeniably gracious
character " on the entire dispensation of forbearance to which it belongs.
Dr. Candlish himself seems to have felt that this is the case. And
hence he ascends to the highest peak of liberality which it is possible
to find within the sphere of his theory ; and he says,—
" But not only is the Cross of Christ a manifestation equally to all of the name or
nature of God,^-it is the proof and measure of that infinite compassion which dwells
in the bosom of God towards each and all of the lost race of Adam, and his infinite
willingness, or rather longing and yearning desire, to receive each and all of them
again into his favour. Even the cross itself would almost seem to be an inadequate
expression — though it is a blessed confirmation — of what is in his heart ; — or the
feeling, so to speak, to which he gives utterance, when, enforcing his appeal by an
oath, he swears : ' As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of
the wicked ; ' — and of the deep, ineffable sincerity of his assurance, that he would
rather — how much rather ! — ' that the wicked should turn from his way and live '
(Ezek. xxxiii. 11)."— p. 196.
These are delightful words. And yet they are no sooner penned than
the writer seems to get nervous regarding them. Hence he adds, —
" Here, once more, I must ask the thoughtful student of Scripture to discriminate.
" There is a well known theological distinction between God's will of decree (volun
tas decreti) and his will of desire or of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaeiti) — between
what his mind, on a consideration of all interests, actually determines, and what his
heart, from its very nature, if I may venture to use the expression, cannot but de
cidedly prefer and wish." (p. 196, 197.)
" Now, it is into this latter will, this will of the divine heaht, and not into the
former, the will of the divine mind, — it is into what God, from his very nature, must
and does desire, in reference to lost sinners, and not into what God, for ends and on
{irinciples as yet unknown, has decreed, — that the cross of Christ gives mankind at
arge, and every individual, if he will but look, a clear, unequivocal, and most satisfy
ing insight. To every individual, believer or not, elect or not, it is a proof and
pledge of the Father's bowels of compassion yearning over him, and the Father's eye
looking out for him, and the Father's arms open to embrace him freely, if he will but
be moved to return. And to no individual, before he does return, is it, or can it be,
anything more. To none does it beforehand impart any further insight into the
character and will of God, as a warrant or encouragement to believe.
" Nor is more needed. This alone is sufficient to lay a foundation for the univer
sality of the gospel offer or call ; to vindicate its sincerity or good faith on the part of
God; and to demonstrate its sufficiency as regards men." (pp. 200, 201.)
Will it be believed by Dr. Candlish's admirers, that what he represents
as "a well known theological distinction between God's will of decree
(voluntas decreti) and his will of desire or good pleasure (voluntas
beneplaeiti)," is, as a matter of sober fact, utterly unknown, and
a pure invention of the imagination of Dr. Candlish himself? And
yet, incredible as it may appear, this is literally the case. There is no
F

70 Vindication of the
such " well known distinction." And there is not a single respectable
theologian, who has left behind him any theological writings, who ever
dreamed of the distinction. Nay more. Every respectable theologian
of Dr. Candlish's own school, if he has approved at all of the theory of a
double will in God, has, since the days of Hugo St. Victor, " the second
Augustin," identified God's will of decree and his will of good pleasure.
And not only so, but Dr. Candlish's own standards identify the two,
and bind him over to the utter repudiation of the distinction.
Asto his standards, let him look into the 3rd chapter of the Westminster
Confession of Faith. It is entitled " of God's eternal decree." It refers,
then, to God's " will of decree." And one of the manifestations of that
will which it expounds is the decree of election. This certainly even
Dr. Candlish will allow to fall under the category of ' ' the will of decree.' '
But let it be noted how the decree is described : —
" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of
the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret
counsel and good pleasure op his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting
glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good
works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as con
ditions, or causes moving him thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."
(Confession of Faith, Chap. iii. Sec. 5.)
God's "will of decree," then, is, according to the Westminster Con-
fessionists, not contrary to, or distinct from, but identical with, God's
" will of good pleasure " or " the good pleasure of his will." And the
Westminster Confessionists are, in tihis identification, in harmony with
all the preceding and succeeding theologians of their school, who approved
of a distinction of wills. Hence it is that Bishop Womaek, in his
Examination of Tilenus before the Triers, introduces Thenus Tepidus as
saying,— _ " I perceive, Sir, you have forgotten your own distinction, though it is so little
time since you used it. You told us, God hath a twofold will, an outward revealed
will and an inward secret will. His outward will is signified by his commands ; ' but,'
saith Piscator, ' they are not properly God's will, for sometimes he nills the fulfilling
of them. As, for example, He commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac, yet nilled the
execution of it.' But his secret will is the will of fits good pleasure, which he hath
therefore decreed shall ever come to pass. Whereupon, one of your divines concludes,
' there is a kind of holy simulation in God.' Now, whereas you urge me to give all
diligence, that I may grow in grace, if this were the will of God's beneplaciture, he
would move and impel me indeclinably to effect it." (p. 68).
If Dr. Candlish will look into Turretin's Theology, (Loc. iii. 9, 15)
he will see the common distinction of wills. And he will find that
"God's will of good pleasure" is distinguished from "God's will of
sign," or " his signified (or revealed) will" (voluntas signij ; and that
" the will of good pleasure," when thus, distinguished from its contrary,
"denotes the decree of God." "Aquinas and the Schoolmen," says
De Moulin, " distinguish the will of God into the will of his good
pleasure (in voluntatem beneplaeiti) and the will of his sign or his
revealed wiE (voluntatem signij." — Anatome Armin. ch. iv., § 9.)
" The will of good pleasure (voluntas beneplaeiti) — is not so called,"
says Maccovius, "in virtue of the object with which it has to do, but
in virtue of its origin, or because of the mode of willing. It represents
God as doing what he does, just because it pleases him so to do.
When we say," he addB, " that all things happen by the will of good

Universality of the Atonement. 71
pleasure, we do not mean that all things which happen, and conse
quently sin, are pleasing to God." " The will of good pleasure
is so called, because whatsoever God willB, he so wills, just because it
so pleases him." (Opera, pp. 15, 358.) All the fine distinctions, then,
which Dr. Candlish makes between "the will of decree" and "the
will of desire or good pleasure " fall to the ground. They are based,
like so many other things which he says in this volume, on a mistake.
But still farther. How comes it to pass that a theologian, while
professing to be making nice distinctions, discriminates between " the
will of the divine heaet," and '* the will of the divine mlnd " ? Is
the divine heart, or is any heart, distinct from the mind ? Is it some
thing that is out of the mind ? Is not the mind comprehensive of all
the elements of heart, will, and intelligence ?
And why too, when making nice distinctions, is the "will" of the
heart spoken of ? Has not language long ago developed itself into that
precision which distinguishes between " will " and " wish " ? And is
it not as manifestly inexact to speak of the will of the heart, as it would
be to speak of the will of the intellect ? Is there not now a well defined
and vital distinction in psychology between volition, emotion, and
intellection ?
But farther still. Is it really the case that Dr. Candlish supposes
that God wishes in his heart what he does not choose with his will ?
If it be, is he an enlightened Calvinist ? Will he ever be able to main
tain his Calvinism on the assumption .of such an antagonism ? Is it
possible, indeed, to find a philosophic foundation for Calvinism in any
other principle than that which Jonathan Edwards lays down — "that
the will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears
most agreeable " ? We indeed entirely dissent from Jonathan Edwards's
psychological apothegm. We account it a psychological heresy. But
how a Calvinist can dissent from it, and yet enlightenedly maintain
his Calvinism, we cannot divine. If he had but sufficient strength of
vision, he would perceive that there can be no other basis for that
principle of philosophical necessitation which is at once the differentiat
ing and the vitalizing element of his peculiar creed.
But farther still. If it be the case that, so far as " the will of God's
heart " is concerned, he has infinite compassion toward each and all of
the lost race of Adam, and longs and yearningly desires to receive each
and all of them into his favour " : — if " to every individual, believer or
not, elect or not, the cross is a proof and pledge of the Father's bowels
of compassion yearning over him, and the Father's eye looking out for
him, and the Father's arms open to embrace him'freely, if he will but
be moved to return " : if all this be the case, then, is it not also the case
that so far as the real love of the heart is concerned, the non-elect are on
an absolute equality with the elect ? The only difference between the
divine relations to the two classes will originate in " the will of decree,"
and not at all in " the will of desire or of good pleasure." Is it so ?
H it is not, what means all the magniloquence about the Father's
"infinite compassion toward each and all of the lost race of Adam," for
what compassion can be greater than that which is "infinite"? But
if it is, what means all the argumentation which the doctor has formally
laboured to build up in defence of the idea that it was a very peculiar

72 Vindication of the
love, not to the world at large, but to the elect church, which moved
the Father to give the Son, and the Son to give himself, for only the
sheep ? The exhortation to husbands to love their wives, is, says Dr.
Candlish, " emasculated, its whole pith is gone, if it be any other
love than that which Christ has for his own, that the apostle brings for
ward as the motive and measure of the conjugal love, which he is
enjoining on believing husbands." (p. 114).
But farther still. If it be really the case that the will of God's heart
far outrides the will of his mind, so that he ardently " longs and yearn
ingly desires to receive back into his favour each and all of the lost race
of Adam," while at the same time he has resolved and decreed to deny
them the atonement, and all the consequent influences which are needed
for regeneration and sanctification and ultimate salvation ; — if this re
presentation of God's will be correct, is he not exhibited as rather an
object of our pity, than as the glorious object of our adoring confidence
and admiration ? " The will of his mind," it seems, wont let him do
what " the will of his heart " longs and yearningly desires to do. The
will of his mind has bound him in fetters, and yet the will of his heart
refuses to wear them in contentment.
Why, moreover, since the will of the divine mind has fixed and
determined that the elect alone shall have the atonement and salva
tion, — why is it that the will of the divine heart insists, notwithstand
ing, on going to the non-elect, and counselling and exhorting and
commanding them to avail themselves of an atonement which was never
meant for them, or made for them; aye, and in threatening them
with an "immeasurably heavier load" of penalty if they will refuse to
accept the ungiven gift, and to put in exercise the impossible faith ?
Is this the natural outgoing of "infinite compassion"? Is it not
rather like a kind of bastard compassion, that is only cruel in its
mercies 1
And why, besides, does not this -will of the divine heart reveal
the simple truth, as it really stands, when it proclaims the gospel ?
When the provision is only for a few, why insist on inviting all?
When the atonement is only for the elect, why insist on urging the
non-elect to embrace it and be saved ? Why not frankly proclaim the
reality which the will of the mind has determined on and fixed ? Why
should not the will of the heart simply announce in its message that it
is sincerely sorry that the atonement was made only for the elect, but
that such is the case, by virtue of the obstinacy of the will of the
mind, and it cannot be helped ? Would not real love incline to sim
plicity and open sincerity ?
No, no. This compassion of the one half of the being of God will
not do. It is not " sufficient to lay a foundation for the universality
of the gospel offer or call." It is not sufficient " to vindicate the call's
sincerity or good faith on the part of God." It is not sufficient " to
demonstrate its sufficiency as regards men." No. Never.
Dr. Candlish says : —
" No sinner, before believing, is entitled to stipulate for any information on the
subject either of the extent or of the sufficiency of the atonement, beyond the assurance
that it will suffice for him, if he will make use of it. To raise a question as to what
may be its aspect or bearing towards him, while he is yet rejecting it, and to insist on

Universality of the Atonement. 73
his having that question answered or settled, as a preliminary condition of his believing,
is not only arrogant presumption, but mere infatuation. And to deal with any such
question, as if it might occasion any scruple really embarrassing to a soul really in
earnest, and therefore really deserving of pity, — or as if the statement of Christ's
dying for his people, and for them only, must be modified or qualified to meet the
scruple, — is but fostering the impiety, and flattering the folly, of unbelief. Let the
sovereign authority of God in the gospel call be asserted, and let the sinner, as a rebel,
he summoned, at his peril, to return to his allegiance. Let him be certified, also, of
the sufficiency of Christ's atoning death for all the purposes for which he can possibly
need it, and the free and full welcome that awaits him with the Father. What more
has he a right to ask F ' The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he
will show them his covenant.' To helievers, accordingly, more insight may be given
into the mind and purpose of God. But let not unbelievers imagine that they, while
yetin an attitude of rebellion, are entitled to have all things made plain." (pp. 202,
203.) What! Who is it that speaks ? Is it one who has some secret means
of information regarding the ways of God ? One, who is commissioned
to dole out his secret information on terms and conditions, such as may
be pleasing to himself? Is it such a one who is speaking, one who has
at once the key of knowledge, and the keys of heaven and hell ? Or is
it one, who has not one single atom of spiritual authority beyond what
is possessed by every other man alive, and who has all his real inform
ation from that open and public bible which is addressed to all, and
which all are invited to investigate, and the true import of which every
man is entitled to try to understand, before he can be reasonably called
upon to take it as the rule of his life ? Would it not be an atterirpt at
a species of popish jurisdiction over souls, to withhold information
regarding any part of the revelation of the volume of the book, until
the neophyte, in implicit obedience to his spiritual instructor, accords
his amen to what are officially and authoritatively represented to him
as the porch-way truths for the uninitiated. Away with such popery.
Let God conceal a thing as he pleases. It is his glory both to reveal
and to conceal. "Secret things belong to him." But let no man
stand by the side of the volume of express revelation and say to the
inquirer — Thus far shalt thou inquire and no farther, till thou aceeptest
as infallible, and as sufficient for thy faith, my interpretations of so
much of the divine revelation as I have been pleased oracularly to ex
hibit.

De. Candlish's Abgttment peom the Eeal Need oe the Sinnee.
It will not be necessary to go elaborately into the consideration of
the remaining chapters of Dr. Candlish's volume. They fall, of their
own accord, to the ground, when the substructure on which they were
reared is demolished. And even though they should refuse, in virtue
of some indwelling spirit of obstinacy, to collapse and scatter themselves
into ruins, they would only continue to exist as a castle in the air.
And we might leave them there. We have ascertained that what Dr.
Candlish regarded as a Scriptural foundation for his theory, is altogether
illusory. It has no existence outside his own fertile imagination.
And hence the towers and the turrets, which continue in the air, might
he left intact as an interesting spectacle of mirage. They cannot do

74 Vindication of the
harm so long as the solid ground of Scripture underneath is unappro
priated and unencumbered.
Nevertheless we may look at them. At least we may cast on them a
glance. And if we can see through them, and notice the sunlight on
the other side of them, and if we can perceive that their substance is
light as gossamer, we need not be apprehensive of being overwhelmed,
when at length they come to flicker down to the ground.
The third chapter of the 2nd part of Dr. Candlish's book is intended
to be an argument on behalf of the doctrine of an atonement for the
elect alone, from the "adaptation" of such an atonement "to the real
need of the sinner." It professes to draw its pith from the experimental
wants of the soul, and from the actual experience of those who have been,
or who are still, in concern in reference to the great salvation. The ar
gument, to say the truth, is not very compactly worked out. It is rather
sporadic — scattered into considerable diffusion; and decorated, moreover,
or else deformed, by the attachment to it of a multitude of miscellaneous
observations and controversial intromissions. We would note a few of
these, and then pass on cursorily to the argument itself.
1. Dr. Candlish admits that "were the parties, for whom the atone
ment is undertaken, named in the proclamation of it, it could not be a
demonstration of goodwill to mankirid generally." But he contends that
" since what is revealed is simply the way of acceptance, or the
principle on which God acts in justifying the ungodly, it seems plain
that to whomsoever such a revelation comes, •with names and numbers
suppressed, it is, in its very nature, a revelation of love." (pp. 209,
210.) Im other words, the claim of the gospel, to be regarded as an
exhibition of the " infinite compassion of God toward each and all of the
lost race of Adam," rests upon a concealment of the actual state of the
case ! If men were but behind the curtain, to see things as they
really are, they would then, it seems, have a totally different idea of
the extent of the loving-kindness of their God ! It is their ignorance,
it would appear, which constitutes their bliss.
2. Dr. Candlish ridicules " those who look upon the gospel as exhib
iting a panacea," but who suppose that it lies with the free-will of
men to accept or reject the healing balm. Their system, as it seems to
him, is "the hap-hazard of absolute free trade, as it were, every man
being left to be his own mediciner." (p. 217.) But does Dr. Candlish,
we would ask, become his own mediciner, when he exercises his free
will, not in the way of prescribing for himself, nor in the way of becom
ing his own apothecary, and compounding his own medicines, but in the
way of accepting and using the regularly prescribed and properly pre
pared medicine of the duly qualified physician? Does he ?
3. He has another way of speaking of those who at once preach a
universal atonement, and recognise the free-will of man. They " affect
to be wiser than God, and to have a simpler gospel to propose than that of
Christ." (p. 220.) Indeed ! But how does Dr. Candlish know, we would
ask ? Is he omniscient ? Or is he entitled to assume that all those who
do not embrace his notions of things, — and these too so unscriptural, so
self-inconsistent, so undigested, and so blurred by errors at once in
criticism and exegesis, and in logic and philosophy, — is he entitled to

Universality of the Atonement. 75
assume that all who do not accept his ideas, are doing nothing less, than
" affecting to be wiser than God, and to have a simpler gospel than that
of Christ " ? Is it he, the Eev. Bobert Candlish D.D. of Edinburgh,
who is God's vicegerent on earth, and before whom every man must
bow down and do obeisance, or be spurned as setting himself up against
both God and Christ ?
4. "It is a great Scriptural truth," says Dr. Candlish, "that in the
exercise of saving faith, Christ's work alone is objective, and the
Spirit's wholly subjective." (p. 227.) But is it no part, we would ask,
of the Spirit's work to take of the things of Jesus and show them
unto men? Jesus seemed to think that it was. (John xvi. 14.) And
if it was, then is not the Spirit's testimony part of his work ? If it be,
must it not be objective in relation to saving faith ? Can there indeed
be real faith or belief in reference to any object historically exhibited,
which does not involve both a proximate and ultimate object ? And
must not the proximate object, as having to do rather with a represen
tative than with a presentative function, be a testimony ? It cannot
be the case then that " the Spirit's work is wholly subjective."
5. In support of the idea that the work of the Spirit is " wholly
subjective," Dr. Candlish refers to John xvi. 13-15. He supposes that
it is asserted in that passage that the Spirit testifies only of Christ,
and does not " speak of himself." (p. 226.) He understands the
Saviour's expression "he shall not speak of himself," as meaning "he
shall not speak concerning himself." But if he had only glanced at his
Greek Testament, he would have seen that the Saviour's idea was alto
gether different. It was this, — "he shall not speak from himself."
The expression does not refer to the objective, but to the originative.
And its meaning is sufficiently explained in the words which immedi
ately follow, — " but whatsoever he shall hear, "that shall he speak."
6. Dr. Candlish thinks that when the atonement is represented
" rather as if it made way for reconciliation, than as if it actually
procured it," a very serious error is committed. He asks indeed, " Is
not this like what Paul calls ' another gospel ' ? " And then he very
emphatically adds, — "To preach, or proclaim, salvation through Christ,
is a different thing from proclaiming salvation in Christ." (p 232.)
He tells how he himself '.' preaches to the crowd of criminals, shut up
in prison, under sentence of death," — "I do not speak to them of a
certain amount of atoning virtue purchased by the obedience and death
of Christ, as if it were a store laid up for general use, from which
they may take what they need. I speak to them of Christ as being
himself the atonement, and summon them to a personal dealing with him
accordingly." (p. 232, 233.) But we apprehend that Dr. Candlish
has not grasped the true philosophy of the Scripture representations,
and that hence he is apt to be too partial- in his attachment to certain
aspects of exhibition. For if indeed he avoids proclaiming " salvation
through Christ," and insists that it is " salvation in Christ " which is
the one thing needful ; and if besides he does more than hint that to
preach "salvation through Christ" is "like what Paul calls another
gospel ;" we fear that he will require to obtain a license for amending
the very Bible itself. For while it is the case that we do read in the
Bible that there is " salvation in Christ " (Acts iv. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 10,

76 Vindication of the
&c), it is at the same time equally the case that we also read
that God hath appointed believers "to obtain salvation through
our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thes. v. 9.) Jesus himself says that " God
sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the
world through him might be saved." (John iii. 17.) And Paul says
that " being justified by faith we have peace with God through out
Lord Jesus Christ ; through whom also we have access by faith into
this grace wherein we stand." (Bom. v. 1, 2.) And he adds, " Much
more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from
wrath through Mm : for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in
God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now
received the atonement." (ver. 9-11.) He tells us again, too, that they
" which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall
reign in life, through one, Jesus Christ." (ver. 17.) But we must not
heap up passages to infinity. It is abundantly manifest that to pro
claim salvation through Christ is not " a different thing from proclaim
ing salvation in Christ." It is only a different aspect of the same
thing. And when Dr. Candlish hints about " what Paul calls another gospel,"
we should suppose it natural for him to inquire : And what was the
gospel which Paul himself preached ? Paul tells us what it was. He
says to the Corinthians, — "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and
wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain: for I
delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
CHEIST DIED EOB OTfB SINS ACCOEDTNG TO THE SCBIPTUBES J AND THAT HE
WAS BUSIED, AND THAT HE EOSE AGAIN THE THIED DAT ACCOBDING TO THE
sceiptxtees." (1 Cor. xv. 1-4.) " The gospel," then, which Paul
preached to the Corinthians, and that too before they were saved, and
while they were yet heathens, involved in it as one of its integrant
elements, — the significant announcement " Christ died for our sins,"
that is, " Christ died, 0 ye Corinthians, for your sins and for mine."
This was what the apostle preached " first of all " to the Corinthians.
And they who received it, were " saved by it ; " for they could not believe
it in vain. (See ver. 14.) This same testimony, consequently, — "Christ
died for our sins," is involved as an indispensable part and parcel of the
gospel in all ages. For the gospel is immutable and univocal. Every
preacher is bound to say " to every creature " to whom he has access,
" Christ died for our sins " — " yours and mine." And it may be well
for us to bear in mind that it is the same Paul who thus preached the
gospel, who also says in the solemn passage alluded to by Dr. Candlish*
" But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed." (Gal. i. 8.) We leave it with Dr. Candlish, and with our
readers, to say whether or not Paul's gospel can be honestly echoed
and re-echoed in every assemblage and " to every creature," if it be
not true that the atonement was undertaken and accomplished for the
sins of universal man.

Universality of the Atonement. 77
But we must now pass on to Dr. Candlish's experimental argument
in support of an atonement for the elect alone. He says, —
"The question is this : — What is it that the awakened soul really needs, and feels
itself to need ? What is its desiderium ? Without hesitation I reply, that what such
a soul desiderates is, not a general or universal redemption, which must necessarily
be contingent and doubtful — but one that is particular, and therefore certain.
" I appeal here to the experience, not only of those who are converted, but of all
who have ever been conscious, or who now are conscious, of any inward movements at
all, tending in the direction of conversion. Were you ever aware, — I would be in
clined to ask any friend thus exercised, — of any spiritual awakening in your conscience
and heart, without having the instinctive conviction, that as regarded both the end to
be attained and the method of attaining it, what you needed — what alone you cared for
and could no longer do without — was, not an interest in some kind of general deliv
erance, or some Tbare chance and opportunity of deliverance common to all, but an
interest in a real and actual salvation, such as, you feel, must be peculiar to God's
own people." (p. 215.)
" Put it to such a sinner, whose conscience within him, thus spiritually quickened,
and undergoing the pangs of the new spiritual birth, is scarcely pacified, and with"
difficulty made to rest. Ask himself, Do you look to Jesus, — do you believe on him,
or long to believe on him, — for no more special and specific blessings than what are
common to the whole human race, for all of whom you are told that he died as a pro
pitiation? Is it for nothing more sure and certain— more complete and full — Sri the
way of salvation, that you seek an interest in Christ, and venture timidly and. fear
fully to hope that you have obtained, at least, a first instalment, as it were,
or infeftment and investiture in it r Ah, no ! he will reply. For such a redemption,
common to me with the lost and damned, it were little worth my while to believe in
Jesus. If I am to believe in him at all, it must be for a great deal more than that."
(p. 223.)
" It is for this, and nothing short of this, that the awakened .and enlightened sinner
cares to believe in Christ at all. He longs to appropriate Christ. But it is Christ as
not a possible, but an actual Saviour, that he does long to appropriate ; Christ as hav
ing purchased a complete salvation,— a salvation complete and sure, irrespective of his
own act of appropriating it, or of the work of the Spirit by which he is persuaded
and enabled to appropriate it." (p. 227.)
We would make the following remarks in reference to this argument
from experience. First, It is scarcely a legitimate method of determin
ing the true doctrine of atonement. For instead of trying the doctrine
by the experience, we should try the experience by the doctrine :
because the experience of sinners, and even of saints, is not inspired.
And any given experience in things pertaining to Christianity must be
determined to be right or wrong, in proportion as it is found to be con
cordant or discordant with " the law and the testimony " of the Spirit
of God. Secondly, we rather apprehend that Dr. Candlish's acquaint
ance with the experience of inquiring souls is too limited to enable him
to erect upon it a legitimate argument. Those who have had most
experience in dealing with souls in their relation to the things of salva
tion, take, we conceive, a somewhat different view of doctrines from
that maintained by Dr. Candlish. And their experience of others'
experience is different. Bichard Baxter's circle of experience in this
practical direction was doubtless incalculably wider than Dr.Candlish's,
and he expressly says, — " I have known few in my observation, but
at their first closing with Christ, have had the same judgment of the
universality of Christ's satisfaction which I plead for." (U. R. p. 152.)
But thirdly, Dr. Candlish confounds throughout, in his prosecution of
this argument, the two thoroughly distinct realities,— propitiation and
salvation or redemption. And hence, indeed, many of the incongruities

78 Vindication of the
which he raises up before his imagination. For it is true that it is a
" complete salvation " which awakened souls desire. It is " a complete
redemption." It is not " a contingent and doubtful," but a "particu
lar and therefore certain redemption." It is not " an interest in some
kind of general deliverance, common to all," but "an interest in a real
and actual salvation, such as is peculiar to God's own people." All this
is indubitable. No one who has conversed with an anxious soul can be
ignorant, and still less can one who has conversed with thousands, that
it is full forgiveness and full salvation which is desired, when the
question is urged " What must I do to be saved ? " _ But then, salva
tion is one thing, and propitiation is another. Salvation terminates on
the sinner ; propitiation on God. It was God who required to be pro
pitiated. It is the sinner who requires to be saved. And it is on the
ground of the complete propitiation, as presented to Himself, that God
presents to the sinner a complete salvation.
It is also of importance to notice that there is a rich variety of ways
in which the blessing of complete salvation is represented in Scripture and
pressed home upon the sinner's reception. But when the essential truth
which animates all the varied developments of representation is grasped,
it is seen that full salvation is realized, when God justifies, sanctifies,
and glorifies. And when God justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies, he acts.
Salvation is thus not a substantive entity, which may be moved from
Being to being, from Spirit to spirit, or from the hand of the Saviour to
the heart of the sinner. It is not a transferable thing. And therefore
when a soul desires it, what it really longs for, or at least what it really
needs, is, — that God should act in reference to it, and so act as to change
its state, and make it an heir of everlasting glory. God is willing thus
to act, on the ground of the propitiation of Jesus. He is waiting thus
to act. And he waits until the condition of the soul is such that it
would be a fit thing — and wise and good and right — to grant the for
giveness of sins and to adopt into the enjoyment of heavenly privileges.
Now it is fit, and -wise and good and right, thus to bless a soul, as
soon as it is in such a condition that it sees itself aright, its sins and
its dangers, and sees too its God aright, his claims, and his justice, and
his love. And all this it sees aright, when it beholds the whole in
that light which streams from the great transaction of Calvary. It
sees aright when it sees Jesus, — Jesus " bearing the sin of the world."
It sees aright, when it " believes on the Lord Jesus Christ " ; — when,
in other words, its thoughts of Jesus are transcripts or reflections of the
thoughts of that all-seeing divine Spirit who has testified of Jesus, and
whose testimony concerning him is " the glorious gospel of God's grace."
But while it is true that it is a complete salvation which the anxious
soul desires and longs for, it is equally absurd and unscriptural to sup
pose that it must be " a salvation, complete and sure, irrespective of its own
act of appropriating it." Such a longing could not be rationally cherished.
For the primary elements of salvation are forgiveness and justification
interblended ; and these are acts of God which cannot take place until
the soul "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." Forgiveness and justi
fication, as all Protestantism knows, are realizable only through faith,
though through faith alone. It is he who believeth, and he only,
who " shall be saved."

Universality of the Atonement. 79
It is most unwarrantable in Dr. Candlish to represent the indispensa-
bleness of this faith as something that is needed, on the hypothesis of a
universal atonement, " to make up " Christ's work to a complete redemp
tion." He says, —
" Ah ! then, after all, it is a salvation by works at least in part. It is a salvation
only partially accomplished by Christ, to be supplemented by those to whom it is
offered. It is a salvation, therefore, conditional, and contingent on something on the
part of the sinner, call it faith or what you will, that is to be not merely the hand
laying hold of a finished work, but an additional stroke needed to finish it." (pp. 225
226.) This representation of the case is not only misrepresentation, it is ex
treme exaggeration of misrepresentation. For the sinner who knows
the simplest rudiments of the doctrines of universal propitiation and
limited salvation, could never attempt, on the one hand, to supplement
the propitiation by his faith ; for he believes that the propitiation was
finished by Christ, and that God has accepted it eighteen hundred year3
ago. And as little could he ever attempt, on the other, to supplement
his salvation by his faith. For he believes that it is God only who can
act in pardoning and justifying and blessing with everlasting life. The
most meagrely enlightened sinner could never dream of acting what he
believes to be the part either of Christ or of God. Tet, he may well
conceive, that, as with innumerable other blessings, so with salvation,
God gives it when the creature is fit or ready to receive it.

Gatheeing itp
Of the Bemaining Cbumbs.
Our space will not admit of more than a few brief and miscellaneous
jottings on some of the more prominent ideas which jut up here and
there throughout the remainder of Dr. Candlish's volume.
(1.) He tries to meet and repel the allegation, that the doctrine of
universal atonement is required to vindicate the universal call of the
gospel. He says that the "whole matter may be left to God himself."
(p. 238.) True, we willingly reply ; if once it be ascertained that the
atonement is, as a matter of fact, overlapped by the call. But at pre
sent this is the very point in dispute. And he himself admits that his
system is entangled with "a knot which cannot be unloosed, — an
arrangement, or ordinance, or decree, which must be resolved into an
exercise of the divine sovereignty, of which no account is given to us."
(p. 240.) The admission seems to us to be a confession of doctrinal incon
sistency somewhere. It seems to amount to this, that God can no longer
say to his rational creatures, as in former times he said, " Judge, I pray
you, betwixt me and my vineyard" (Isa. v. 3) ; — " Judge, I pray you,
and see if there be anything in my ways which is apparently inconsis
tent with justice."
2. Dr. Candlish admits that there is no consistent standing-place in
theology, between the doctrine of God's absolute decree " going before
both the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, and defining both,"

80 Vindication of the
and the doctrine of " the power (arbitrium) of man's will coming after
both of these works, and restricting what God has left general " (p. 241).
But as this latter idea is " the Pelagian theory of human ability " (p.
245), it must not even be looked in the face. And yet we think that
we are justified in remarking that if it be Pelagianism to maintain, as
certainly we do, the power of man's will to choose or to refuse, we pel-
agianize in very respectable company. For was not even Joshua of old
just such a Pelagian ? Did he not say to his countrymen, " Choose ye
this day whom ye will serve " (Josh. xxiv. 15). And the Fathers of
the first three centuries of the christian era were equally Pelagian, for
all of them held the power of man's free-will (the avn^oueion).
And, to come down to the most modern times, Dr. M'Cosh, one of Dr.
Candlish's ecclesiastical brethren, seems to have become a Pelagian,
for he says, —
" The will is free. In saying so, I mean to assert, not merely that it is free to act
as it pleases,— indeed, it may often be hindered from action, as when I will to move
my arm, and it refuses to obey because of paralysis. I claim for it an interior and a
higher power — a power in the mind to choose, and, when it chooses, a consciousness
that it might choose otherwise." (Intuitions of fhe Mind Inductively Investigated, p. 308.)
And more than all, or at least more to the present point than all, Dr.
Candlish himself is a latent Pelagian. For he holds that God offers
Christ in the gospel to all men, and " offers him in good faith " (p. 249),
so that all men may be saved (p. 262) and should be saved. He holds
this, while at the same time he holds that the special influence of the
Spirit is withheld from the great majority of men. He must hold, then,
that all the non-elect at least have the Pelagian power of free-will to
choose the proffered boon. And he must likewise hold that God himself,
in the universal gospel-call, commands all, or all the non-elect at least,
to pelagianize. If this is not Dr. Candlish's idea, he has very cruelly
mocked his non-elect feUow- immortals in urging upon them the gospel
offer, and threatening them with aggravation of criminality if they reject
the Saviour. »
(3.) In reply to those who hold that the doctrine of the universal
atonement is essential to the establishment of the responsibility of men
for rejecting the great salvation, Dr. Candlish boldly takes his position
on the assumption and assertion, that " it is most dangerous to admit
that man is entitled to stipulate, before consenting to hold himself
responsible in any matter, that he shall have any knowledge of the in
tention of God, or any assurance of ability in himself " (p. 255). But,
to speak the truth plainly, Christ seems to have had a different idea
altogether, for he said to the Pharisees, " If ye were blind (if ye really
had no power to see), ye should have no sin" (John ix. 41). And the
thought of Christ was the thought of the whole Godhead; for in the
very law which exhibits the measure of man's duty, there is a recogni
tion of the principle, that responsibility cannot overlap ability : — " thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with
all thy mind, and with all thy strength (or power) " Mark xii. 80. 
Any other doctrine, indeed, than thatiembodied in the very terminology
of the law, is obviously-— we hope Dr. Candlish will pardon us for
saying it — a doctrine of tyranny. And on the ground of any such

Universality of the Atonement. 81
doctrine God could never, we presume, appeal to men and say — " are
not my ways equal ? " Are not my ways just ? Judge ye. (Ezek.
xviii. 29),
(4.) Dr. Candlish, in carrying out his view of the atonement in
the practical work of the ministry, contends strenuously that it is the
peculiar function of saving faith, not so much to believe a truth, as to
appropriate Christ. And he thus writes on the subject : —
" For, in one word, let the principle upon which the salvation of the sinner, accord
ing to the gospel plan, turns or depends^ be clearly understood. It is his union or
oneness with Christ. He is in Christ, and Christ in him. They are truly and spirit
ually ' one ' (1 Cor. vi. 17). Their union or oneness is not an idea merely,, but a
great fact. It is not simply imputative, or by imputation. It is not their being reck
oned one, otherwise than it is there being really one: It is not as if, by a sort of
fiction of law, Christ the righteous one, and I the guilty one, were accounted identical,
and treated as identical; — he being treated as one with me in my guilt and condem
nation ; I being treated as one with him in his righteousness and life. No doubt that
is a correct enough representation of the matter, so far as it goes. Put it is imperfect,
and therefore apt, or rather sure, unless explained, to convey an erroneous impression.
It suggests the notion of artificial contrivance or policy. It makes the transaction look
like an evasive or collusive device of legal ingenuity, to save the technical validity of
the statute, while practically its rigid amplication is got rid of. It must be ever kept
in mind, that there is and can be nothing of this sort in the dealing of the holy and
just God with me, as represented by Christ and identified with Christ. There is impu
tation, — but it is because there is reality, — in the union formed between Christ the
Saviour and me " the chief of sinners." The imputation which the union carries in
it, depends on the reality of the union. The oneness is not a legal fiction ; an " as
if," or "as it were," if I may so speak. It is real, personal, ana vital. Christ and
I are regarded and dealt with as in the eye Of the law one, because we are indeed one.
And what makes us one is my believing in him, — my faith." (pp. 277, 278).
But is there not, we would ask, an almost unaccountable confusion
in this representation of union with Christ. There is imputation, Dr.
Candlish says, because there is reality in the union formed between Christ
and his people. The " imputation depends on the reality of the union."
It is indeed on the ground of the reality of the union that Christ suffered
because of his people's sins, and that they are saved because of his right
eousness ! And this union is effected by faith! "Faith," says Dr.
Candlish, in a sentence succeeding the paragraph we have quoted, " is the
instrument or means, as the Spirit is the agent, in effecting this real, close,
personal, and intimate union." Such are Dr. Candlish's words. And
yet he admits that Christ died eighteen hundred years before he himself
was born ! He died consequently before it was possible for that union
to be " effected," without which, according to his own doctrine, the im
putation of his own sin to the Saviour, would be a moral imposBi*
bility, "like an evasive and collusive device of legal ingenuity, to save
the technical validity of the statute, while practically its rigid ap
plication is got rid of." What then is to become of the elect in these
days ? For if imputation depend on union ; and if union depend on
faith ; it must be a chimera of delusion to think that the sins of
any who are now living were " made to meet on the Lamb of God,"
when he was sacrificed on Calvary.
(5.) Like all others, who believe in an atonement for the elect alone,
Dr.. Candlish is .perplexed with the nature of saving faith. It cannot

82 Vindication of tfe
be, he is convinced, " the belief of the truth," although an apostle
seems to define it as such. (2 Thess. ii. 13.) Its very essence, he says,
is " consent and confidence, trust and reliance." (p. 394.) He would
make it chiefly consist in our embracing, with a fiducial reliance and
trust, him whom God reveals." (p. 295.) We must understand by it
" that consent of the entire inner man which effects our union with
Christ, and the submitting ourselves to him as the righteousness of
God." (p. 299.) " It is hard to see what precise truth it can be, the
bare and simple belief of which is to work such a direct appropriating
assurance as the calling of Jesus Lord must be held to mean." (p. 299.)
" It cannot well be anything short of my actually so dealing with
Christ himself personally as to accept him, and close with him, and
embrace him. In a word," adds he, " my faith, in its direct and ob
jective act or exercise, makes Christ mine." (p. 300.) But still, he
contends, it cannot be accurately defined, for "language cannot catch
a direct act of the mind without instantly making it reflex." "The
moment I put my faith or feeling into words, it is as if I looked
into a mirror, or sat to a painter, to have, not the primary attitude
of my soul, but an image of it, presented to my own view and to the
world's." (p. 304.) " The direct exercise of simple trust cannot thus
recognise its own reality without instantly and altogether ceasing to be
direct, and becoming reflex and inferential." (p. 305.) All this is
tangled enough. But we must add one other extract still, —
"For, after all, the belief of a statement which is abstractly or independently true,
whether I believe it or not, is a different thing from the belief of a statement which
becomes true through some process of conviction, or concurrence, or consent on my
part ; and it is different, also, from the process itself on which tbe truth of a state
ment of this latter kind turns. There is thus a sort of tertium quid, an intermediate
something, between the belief of the one kind of statement and that of the other,
which it seems vain to attempt to reduce into the form of a categorical proposition.
That Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of sinners, is a clear announcement ; that
he is my Saviour, is a clear announcement also. Put the former is true, as a matter
of fact, whether I believe it or not ; the latter becomes true, as a matter of fact,
only upon my believing. Does not this seem to prove that my believing, standing as
it does between the two announcements, and forming the stepping-stone from the for
mer announcement to the latter, is different from the belief of either the one or the
other ? But no categorical proposition can possibly be framed between these two :
He saveth sinners ; and, He saveth me." (pp. 306, 367.)
The result, then, of all Dr. Candlish's research into the nature of
faith, seems to be that he lands himself in a mist. Faith is undefin-
able. It " cannot be expressed in any formula of the naked intellect."
It is something which turns the contingent into the categorical ; and is
a stepping-stone from the general proposition "Christ saveth sinners"
tothe particular affirmation "He saveth me." For "no categorical
proposition," says Dr. Candlish, " can possibly be framed between
these two." Clouds and thick darkness seem to surround the whole
subject. And no wonder. His theory of atonement has taken away the pro
per object of faith ; and therefore the act of faith must needs resolve
itself into a mystery. But if Dr. Candlish would but return to
simplicity of thought, -he would perceive that, from the very fact that
faith is faith, its ultimate object cannot be directly presented, and must
therefore be indirectly represented, to the mind. It is represented in

Universality of the Atonement. 83
what the Scriptures call " the gospel," or " the truth," or complexly
" the word of the truth of the gospel." And it must therefore be with
this that the mind of the sinner has, in the first instance, to do. He
must "believe the gospel." (Mark i. 15.) In other words, he must
" come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii. 4.) In other words
still, he must " believe the record which God hath given of his Son.",
(1 John v. 10.) In this " gospel," or " truth," or " record," the ulti
mate object of faith is not only represented, but divinely represented;
So that when the gospel, or the truth, or the record, is believed, the
mind of the sinner is thinking the very thoughts of God, and seeing as
through the eyes of God. He is seeing Jesus somewhat as God looks
on him. He is seeing God-in-Jesus, somewhat as God looks on Him
self. And as the gospel testifies that " Christ died for our sins accord
ing to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. xv. 1-4), and thus became " a propitiation
for the sins of the whole world " (1 John i. 8) ; the sinner sees " God
in Christ," a propitiated God, willing, wishing, and waiting to forgive
the very chief of sinners (1 Tim. ii. 4). He beholds the Lamb of God
bearing his sins. He beholds his God " well-pleased for Christ's right
eousness' sake." He beholds that all the barriers outside of himself,
which interposed between him and the reception and enjoyment of every
blessing which is bound up in the bundle of salvation, have been re
moved by the propitiation. And in the self-consciousness of faith, the
self- consciousness of now looking at that on which God is looking, and
of beholding God himself as reflectively manifested in the mirror of
" Christ the crucified," — in this self-consciousness of faith he is instantly
conscious that the one barrier within him — unbelief — is swept away.
And immediately he feels impelled to exclaim — "I see, I see; Christ
" is mine. He loved me and gave himself for me. God is my Father.
" He so loved me that-he gave his only begotten Son for me, that I, be-
" lieving in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. God's
" smile is on me. I behold it. Christ's smile is on me. I behold it.
" Heaven is opened up before me. I see into it. 0 the heavenliness
"of heaven! 0 the heavenliness of the love of God in Christ to
" me and to all ! — yes, to all my brothers and sisters of humanity ! The
''holy and universal disinterested love of my God passeth my compre-
"hension. But it ravishes me. It is all sublime and glorious. It
" captivates me : and henceforth, therefore, I say, Farewell to wicked-
"ness, and worldliness, and selfishness. Henceforth I live not unto
" myself, but unto my Saviour and my God, and unto godliness, and
"goodness, and Binlessness in the world."
We would rejoice if Dr. Candlish would return to simplicity on this
subject, and have faith that faith is faith. Then he would come to un
derstand that it is thought which rules at once the universal macrocosm
and the human microcosm. And that the only, though sufficient, se
curity for the true cosmical order of the little world of man's being
is, thinking the evangelical thoughts of God. And in order to think these
thoughts of God, all that is needed is to open up oursouls, in thirsting
recipiency, to that glorious gospel which, as in a mirror, reflects him
who is the Moral Mirror and express Image of the Father.
(6.) Dr. Candlish has two chapters (Part II. ch. vii. and viii.) on

84 Vindication of the J
"the warrant of faith." The expression is common among the theo
logians of his school. And yet it indicates volumes concerning the
bemistification in which they have contrived to get the whole subject
of faith enveloped. Though used with perfect reverence, it is yet,
when intrinsically considered, almost libellous. It is a virtual libel
on the moral character of God. And had correct ideas been enter
tained, its invention would have been crushed in the bud, and the
occasion for its use for ever annihilated.
The case is not correctly stated when men are said to be warranted
to believe in Christ. They are bound to believe in him. It is their
imperative duty to believe. It is God's commandment that they should
believe. And why then ask for a warrant of faith ? If even Dr.
Candlish were to make a solemn affidavit on some subject on which his
testimony was required, his friends, who know his veracity, would
never dream of expiscating their warrant to believe his word. They
would hold themselves bound in honour to receive it with unwavering
confidence. " And if," says the apostle John, "we receive the witness
(the testimony) of men, the witness (the testimony) of God is greater"
(1 Ep. v. 9), and should be more unwaveringly received. " He that
believeth not God, hath made him a liar" (1 Jo. v. 10); and he that
goeth about to gather up a sufficiency of warrant for believing him,
casts, though he meaneth it not, a stain on the divine integrity.
(7.) Dr. Candlish holds that " the name of God as seen in the atone
ment is the great warrant for believing." And God, he says, is there
seen as " punishing, in the strictest sense," the substitute of sinners (p.
323). Christ's sufferings, he maintains, "were, in the strictest sense,
penal and retributive " (p. 326). The atonement was " the literal and
actual endurance by Christ, the substitute, of the legal punishment due
for sin to sinners" (p. 328). Such is Dr. Candlish's idea. But there
is something most repulsive in it. And we cannot be wrong in affirm
ing that it must involve a strained representation of the great transaction
of Calvary. In one passage of Scripture, it is true, we do read that
" the chastisement of our peace " was upon Jesus (Isa. liii. 5). And in
language accommodated to infants and persons of the weakest capacity,
it may be warrantable to represent God as punishing Christ for our sins.
Though even to such persons it would be better, we imagine, and safer
to use another kind of catachresis, and say that God "punished our sins
on Jesus." But for a theologian, in a theological treatise, to maintain
that God "punished" Jesus, and punished him too "in the strictest
sense of the term," is — we cannot but out with it — nothing short of an
outrage upon man's moral sense. The Bible; though the most popular of
books, never says that Christ was punished for our sins. It says that
he suffered for our sins. It says that he bore our sins. It says that he
became a propitiation for our sins. And until we can believe that guilt
and criminality are substantive entities which maybe handed about like
stolen watches or forged bank-notes, we only cheat our own minds if
we profess to hold that sins are literally transferable, and that the
sinner's innocent substitute can be "punished," in the " strictest sense
of the term." Moral satisfaction never can be absolutely identical with
the duty due from, or the punishment incurred by, the delinquent ; for

Universality of the Atonement. 85
it is a maxim as old almost as the hills, and as stable too, that satisfactio
est solutio recusabilis, sed solutio ejusdem est non recusabilis.
(8.) As a consequence of the idea that the atonement of Christ was
the endurance of the literal punishment due for sin to sinners, Dr.
Candlish goes on consistently to maintain, that God does not deal with
the sins of the elect " in the way of pardoning them, in the sense of
remitting their legal punishment." (p. 323.) " The transaction of the
cross reveals God as never pardoning, in the strict and proper sense of
the word, but always punishing sin." (p. 324.) This is consistency in
deed. But it is consistency with a vengeance. God "never pardons" !
How strange, and how unseriptural, both the sound and the sense of the
assertion ! For is it not an element in the very name of God, as pro
claimed too by Himself, that " he forgiveth iniquity and transgression
and sin"? (Ex. xxxiv. 7). And does not the Psalmist echo back to
God this very element of His name, and say, — " there is forgiveness
with thee, that thou mayest be feared" ? (Ps. cxxx. 4). And surely the
returned captives from Babylon were not doing wrong when they lifted
up their voices most jubilantly to adore the God of their fathers as a God
of pardons? (Neh. ix. 17, margin). No. We must hold, and hold most
tenaciously and gratefully, that God does pardon. IfDr. Candlish's notion
were correct, what could our Saviour mean, when he put into our daily
prayer the petition "Forgive us our debts," and added to it "as we for
give our debtors " ? The petition is decisive as to the fact that God does for
give. But its accompaniment makes assurance doubly sure. For if it
were the case that God never pardons, strictly speaking ; and if yet we
ask him to pardon us, as we pardon those who trespass against ourselves,
it would be implied in our petition that it is our duty never to pardon,
strictly speaking, any who trespass against us. " Forgive one another,"
says Paul to the Ephesian christians, " even as God for Christ's sake
hath forgiven you " (Eph. iv. 32). But if Dr. Candlish's idea were the
divine one, the Ephesians would be here exhorted by the Apostle never
to pardon, but always to punish, one another's offences ! Surely the
theory of the atonement that shuts up a respectable and ingenious
theologian to the maintenance of such anti-scripturism and absurdity
must be erroneous and outre. And wise was the maxim of Bichard
Baxter when he laid it down as a rule that " that doctrine which con
sequentially denieth all pardon of sin, is not of God." ( U. R. p. 69.)
(9.) Dr. Candlish, as might have been expected, when his theory
of the atonement is taken into account, believes in " the com
plete safety and blessedness of all who are once in Christ." (p. 336).
" The great name of Jehovah is the security or guarantee implied in
God's swearing by himself, that his blessing, once bestowed, is irrevoc
able ; as when he gives to those who might be discouraged by the fear
of falling away, the pledge of ' two immutable things — wherein it is
¦ impossible- for him to lie ' — that is, his immutable word and his immut
able nature — to prove the impossibility of his casting off his people, and
to ' show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel,
that they might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the
hope set before them (Heb. vi. 9-20)."— p. 344. But a more " com-

86 Vindication of the
prehensive study of the inspired writer's leading train of thought "
would convince Dr. Candlish that the " immutable counsel of God " was
something very different from a determination te prevent believers from
fallingawayfrom theirfaith. Itwas, astheinspired writer himself informs
us, that ' ' blessing,he would bless Abraham, andmultiplying, he would mul
tiply him." (Heb. vi. 14.) And certainly something else may be inferred
from that precious promise besides the necessitation of the perseverance
of believers. While the duty of perseverance should ever be pressed
home upon believers, the assertion of the absolute certainty of their per
severance is at once unscriptural and inadvantageons. And Dr. Candlish
need not travel beyond the very chapter of the Epistle from which he
quotes, to find that such an assertion is at variance with the mind of the
Spirit. In the sixth verse of that chapter the condition of those who
" have fallen away " is portrayed in the very strongest colours. We
say " of those who have fallen away," for if Dr, Candlish will only open
his Greek Testament, he will see that the expression translated in our
version "if they shall fall away," ought to have been rendered "and
have fallen away." And he may consult, if he hesitates, two of his
own chosen authorities, Moses Stewart and Dean Afford ; for the trans
lation we have given is that whieh, of course, has received the patronage
of both.
(10.) Dr. Candlish devotes achapter — the ninth — to the consideration
of " the hypothesis of a postponed atonement." He says, —
" Let ns suppose his blessed work to have been postponed tail the end of time. Let
us regard him as, from the beginning, waiting to receive accessions of individuals,
from age to age, made willing, by the Spirit, to take him as their surety, covenant-
head, and representative. Let us conceive of him as thus waiting to have the number
of his seed actually made up, and all who are to receive salvation at his hands effectu
ally called and united to him. The fulness of that time comes at last. The last soul
is gathered in. The entire multitude of the elect race who are to stand to him, as the
second Adam, in the same relation in which the fallen family of mankind stands to the
first Adam, is ascertained ; — not only in the eternal counsels of the Godhead, and the
covenant in heaven between the Father and the Son, but in the actual result accom
plished by the Holy Spirit on the earth. Then at last, the Son, on their behalf and
in their stead, performs the work, in which, by anticipation, they have all been enabled
to believe, and satisfies divine justice, and makes reconciliation for them all.
" Where, in such circumstances, would be the necessity of a general or unlimited
reference in his atonement i No one called to believe, with the knowledge that
Christ was to be the surety of believers alone, and that as the surety of believers alone
he was to be ultimately nailed to the cross, could have any embarrassment on that
account. There might still be difficulties in his way, arising out of the decree of
election, or out of the doctrine of the special grace of the Holy Ghost. But at all
events, the limitation of the work which Christ had yet to do, to those who, before
he did it, should be found to be all that would ever consent to take him as their
Saviour, could not, in such a case, occasion any hesitation." (pp. 349, 350.)
The idea of a postponed atonement grows upon the doctor as he pon
ders over it. Indeed it becomes to him a kind of pet. And he has great
hope that it will yet do no little good to the cause of sound theology.
" It is a supposition which, unless I am mistaken, may be found to carry in its
bosom, or in its train, not a few of the elementary truths needed for a settlement of
this whole dispute." (p. 362.)
" I have a deep persuasion that, if seriously and devoutly pondered, it might arrest
not a few earnest and inquisitive minds, who, having got entangled in the difficulties
in which this subject is confessedly involved, as in one direction it touches the throne

Universality of the Atonement. 87
°f P0Ij— whose tnrone clouds and darkness must ever surround— are seeking relief
and a door of escape, in another direction, by taking liberties with it at the point at
which it touches the hearts and consciences of men." (pp. 357, 358.)
The great benefit to be derived from the hypothesis is the following,
— " an air or aspect of greater contingency is imparted to the whole
transaction." (p. 354.) "It looks like leaving the door more open" !
(p. 369.) There would indeed be no real benefit to the sinner, though
the hypothesis were realized. No. This, Dr. Candlish admits. But
then appearances would be saved ! And that, it seems, is of itself a
mighty affair. It is a pity to touch a man's pet. The pets of grown-up
men are like the toys of little masters in petticoats. Touch them if you
dare ! One might almost as well rob a bear of her cubs, or attempt to take
the idol-images on which some Eachel reclines But really the doctor
has left us no alternative. And we must therefore just say, that when
he waxes warm with his subject, and represents Christ as " standing
from generation to generation, among the successive millions of the
children of men, and testifying to them all, that he has been ordained
to become the substitute of all sinners, without exception, who choose
to accept of him in that capacity "(p 363), he "suppresses" an essential
verity of his theory. He suppresses this, — that the ability of the sinner
to accept the Saviour as his substitute, is itself a part of the salvation
which the Saviour was to purchase, (p. 386.) Why then represent the
Saviour as inviting the non-elect to accept him ? It is an invitation to do
something which is a part of salvation. And since it is, why represent
the Saviour as virtually inviting the non-elect to save themselves ?
Why ? we ask. Is it part of the doctor's' grand hypothesis to make
Christ a preacher of pelagianism ?
But again. Dr. Candlish must suppose, unless he would overturn
the whole plan of salvation by his hypothesis, that the only way of
accepting Christ in " the capacity of substitute " would be by faith.
By faith then in what ? For doubtless there must be some testimony,
if there is to be faith. And, unless the whole scheme of mercy is to be
whirled into chaos, the testimony must amount in substance to the
gospel. It can be nothing else than, in a promissory form, what the
actual gospel is, in a historical form. But the actual gospel amounts to
this — " Christ died for our sins and was buried and was raised again.''
(1 Cor. xv. 1-4.) The promissory gospel, therefore, must amount to
this " Christ will die for our sins and will be buried and then raised
again." Men, then, if called on, under Dr. Candlish's hypothesis, to
believe at all, would be called on to believe that " Christ would die for
their sins," and they could only accept Christ in the capacity of substi
tute by means of such faith. Where now is the apparent difference ?
How are appearances more astutely saved, by having to believe that
"Christ will die for our sins," than by having to believe that
" Christ has died for our sins ? " Surely those sinners must be ob
tuse indeed, who would be imposed upon by such a diversity of mere
appearance. (11.) Dr. Candlish, however, in the working out of his hypothesis,
waxes warm and zealous in the matter of " the gospel offer." He
holds it to be " the freest and fullest of all possible offers or proclama-

88 Vindication of the
tions," and he would avail himself of it in the way of " summon
ing all men everywhere to believe and live, to come to the Saviour and
be saved." (p. 397.) He again introduces the Saviour himself as the
preacher, and. thus depicts him, —
" And still, as age after age rolls on, he may be seen, down to the last moment, ply
ing each one of the mighty multitude of the guilty,— almost lingering as he takes his
appointed place, at last, under the broken law and the impending curse : Thy surety
also, would I gladly be, if thou wouldst but suffer me; thine, as well as this thy
neighbour's, who has not been less guilty than thou ! Thy sins would I willingly bear,
as well as his ! Yet once more consider, 0 thou lost one, ere I go on my heavy and
bloody work ! Shall I go in thy stead, as well as in his ? Wilt thou have me to go
as substitute for thee, as well as for him ? Choose before it be too late ! " (p. 364.)
All this has a delightful " appearance." It really looks like leaving
the door quite open. It has " an air and aspect " of blessed univer
sality and sincerity about it. And yet what are the veritable ideas
which lie behind the whole representation ? They are these. First,
when Christ is represented as saying "thy surety also would I gladly
be," he speaks only from his "revealed will," not from his "secret
will " (p. 209), only from " the will of his heart," not from "the will
of his mind." (p. 200;) He speaks only from the one half of his soul.
Secondly, the " will of the mind, " from whi ch he does not speak, is the only
will which actually, and as a matter of fact, ever does, or ever did, or ever
will do, any real good to any creature in the universe. Thirdly, at the
very time that he said ' ' thy sins will I willingly bear," he knew that his
own and his Father's "will of decree "had determined long before the sin
ner was ushered into being, that his sins should not be borne.
Fourthly, though he says " if thou wouldst but suffer me," he knew
that the sinner could not hinder him. Fifthly, if he meant latently to
include faith when he said " if thou wilt but suffer me," he knew that
the man could not thus suffer him, unless he himself, by the will of
his own and his Father's decree, should pledge himself beforehand to
die for the man and thus procure for him the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Sixthly, when he says "choose before it be too late," and yet makes
no reference either exoterically or esoterically, to the work of the
Spirit, he fairly pelagianizes in his address ; and if he was sincere in
his invitalion, he really wished the sinner to become a Pelagian.
Is this, then, the offer which is " the freest and fullest of all possible
offers " ? It may be so. But we hope that Dr. Candlish will not take
a leaf out of his own representation of his blessed Saviour's procedure,
and offer kind offices either to his foes or to his friends on any
similar principle. What would become of society, if merchants were
to offer goods, and if ministers of government, members of parliament,
councillors of burghs, and others, were to offer their services to their
fellow-men, on the principle of that mere and hollow semblance of reality
which Dr. Candlish ascribes to his Lord ? What would become of us all,
in every one of our relationships, if it were deemfed right and honour
able to make niggardly provision for a few, and then with, loud flourishes
of trumpets, invite and exhort and entreat all and sundry to come and
partake freely of the gift of our unlimited liberality ?
(12.) In singular contrariety to his somewhat inflated professions of
liberality in the matter of the gospel offer, Dr. Candlish closes his v«l-

Universality of the Atonement. 89
nme with a chapter which most effectually dissipates that whole " air
and aspect" of his great hypothesis, which " made it look like leaving
the door more open." He very unmistakeably shuts the door, and
even slaps it with a clang ; and also locks it ; and double bolts it too.
And he sets a guard around it, to boot, with swords " which turn every
way," to fence the tree of life from all non-elect intruders. This
closing chapter is on " The source and origin of faith." He goes at
once to the root of the matter by asking the following question, " In
the initial motion of the soul, obeying the divine call — Believe andLive,
is the life from faith, or the faith from life? " (p. 371.) If one had
got no hint of his system, the very quotation of the words " Believe
and Live " might have led to the anticipation that the answer would be
—that a man must "believe and then live." And this anticipation
would be confirmed by recollecting the numerous explicit declarations
of Scripture, — "They that hear the voice of the Son of God shall live "
(Jo. v. 25) : "ye will not come unto me that ye might have life "
(Jo. v. 40) : " if any man eat of the living bread which came down
from heaven, he shall live for ever" (Jo. vi. 51) : "he that believeth
on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live " (Jo. xi, 25) : " he that
hath the Son, hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not
life" (1 Jo. v. la) : "you who were dead in sins, hath God quickened
together with Christ," " for by grace are ye saved through faith '.' (Eph.
ii. 1-8). But no. Such is not Dr. Candlish's theory., 'One would almost
suppose that he has made a mistake in writing " Believe and live;" for
his theory reverses the order into " Live and believe.'1' "Faith," he says,
" is one of the fruits of the new birth, or the new nature, or the new
spiritual life." (p. 378.) And he abjures the idea, as dangerous error,
that it can be " an act or exercise of which the soul is capable, (even)
with divine help, in its natural condition, and by means of which it
reaches the higher position of the complete new birth or new creation."
(p. 378.) Such is Dr. Candlish's notion. And yet the Bible says,
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." (2 Cor. v. 17.) It
does not say " if any man be a new creature, he will come into Christ."
And it says again of the Father of lights, — " Of his own will, begat he
us with the word of truth." (James i. 1 8.) It does not say, " Of his own
will begat he us, and then we believed the word of truth." " The word
of truth" is the instrument employed; and of course it must be " the
word of truth as believed in." Believers of the word of truth are thus
"born again,, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word
of God which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet. i. 23.) Their new
birth is consequent on their faith in the word of God. Even Dr.
Candlish himself, when he glances at this saying of Peter, cannot help
contradicting his own theory on the matter, for, notwithstanding what ye.
have quoted from him and have yet to quote, he says of the impartation
of the new life, — " you have the agency of the quickening Spirit, and the
instrumentality of the unchanging word." This looks well. If there
be both the agency of the Spirit and the instrumentality of the word,
in the impartation of the new life, surely faith must be the antecedent
of the life; and the order of sequence will be the good old order of " be
lieve and live," and not the reverse and somewhat jarring order of
" live and believe." For one would naturally think that if the word

90 Vindication of the
be the instrument, it must be the word as believed in, and of course as
believed in, not by the divine Spirit himself, but by the human spirit*
But no. Dr. Candlish has no sooner contradicted himself by latently
allowing the antecedent instrumentality of (faith in) the word whieh
liveth and abideth for ever, than he hastens to recontradict himself back
into his original and governing idea. For he immediately adds " and
so the fruit, or result, is faith." (p. 388.) _ The whole conglomerate
of his idea is this : In regeneration the Spirit must work, and man
must have faith in the word : and the result of the two united factors
is faith ! It reminds us of the mystical body of the elect in the womb
of itself! (p. 161.) -
(13.) Faith, "in fact," says Dr. Candlish, is the act of "a new fa
culty." (p. 379.) What, asks he, can the expression the gift of God
mean, "if it be not that God directly bestows the faculty or capacity of
believing ? " (p. 380.) And yet Dr. Candlish is the very man who
expressly glories in the gospel offer as " the freest of all possible offers,"
and who says to every one without distinction, "Ah, why hesitate, poor
sinner ? In with thee at Once, and once for all. In, I say. In, with
thy living, loving Saviour " (p. 164) ; that is, believe on thy living, lov
ing Saviour. Exercise faith, exercise faith, he seems to cry to all and
sundry. But he " suppresses " the one half of the truth. And it might
almost be thought 'that he " says aside " to the elect, They cannot, for they
have not got the faculty or capacity.
(14.) "Faith," says Dr. Candlish, " is the act of a renewed under
standing, a renewed will, and a renewed heart." (p. 382.) But if it
be, would it not be both an injury and an insult to call on the unrenewed
sinner to " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that he might be saved " ?
(Acts xvi. 31.) Does not, moreover, the synthesis of a renewed under
standing, a renewed will, and a. renewed heart, constitute an entire new
man ? Is not the unity of a man, so far as his spirit-nature is concern
ed, but the obverse of the triplicity of his understanding, will, and
heart ? And must not therefore the triplicity of a renewed understand
ing, a renewed will, and a renewed heart, be the other side of that new
ness of the whole manhood, which is realized when a man is " created
after God in righteousness and true holiness " ? (Eph. iv. 24.) But if
it be, then, according to Dr. Candlish, we have entire spiritual renewal
or sanctification first, and justification second. And thus not only have
we justification arising out of works ; we have also direct antagonism to
the express declaration of the Spirit, that " God purifies the heart by
faith." (Acts xv. 9.)
(15.) But Dr. Candlish has not yet reached the summit of this sub
ject of faith. Something higher still is a-head. He at length ascends
to it, and says : " Faith is truly a divine principle." It is " a divine
act, implying the communication of a divine capacity." (p. 388.) Not
only, it seems,. is the faculty of faith new. That of itself were marvel
lous enough. But this new faculty is, as distinguished from other facul
ties, divine. This is far more marvellous still. But yet farther, — Its
very acts are divine! The idea is almost a miracle of theological fancy.

Universality of the A tonement. 9 1
The whole of religion, it seems, so far as it is rooted in faith, is transcen
dental. It is entirely lifted up out of the sphere of the human. It not
only aspires to the infinite. It not only climbs to the supernatural and
supernal. It merges in, and is transmuted into, the divine. In short, it
pantheizes. And, in sober fact, it is exclusively the concern of God.
And yet who is louder than Dr. Candlish in calling upon all and sun
dry, with strong crying, and exhortation, and warning, and even with de
nunciation, to believe and live ? They who do not, in compliance with
his call, put forth the " divine act," although they are utterly destitute
of the " divine faculty," are denounced by him as " incurring an im
measurably heavier load of guilt than if they had never heard of the
joyful sound." (p. 172.) They are bound, it seems, though not fur
nished with wings, to soar ; and to transcend the human and rise into
the divine ; and to fake heaven by storm ; and, to sum all, to achieve
impossibility upon impossibility.
(16.) " Do we," asks Dr. Candlish, " by such teaching as to its source
" and origin, disparage faith, as if we called in question the great doctrine
" of salvation through faith ? Undoubtedly we do, if it be held that sal-
" vation is through faith in such a sense as to imply that this faith is not
" itself a part of the salvation ; that it is not included in the salvation of
" which redemption by the shedding of Christ's blood, and regeneration
" by the operation of the Holy Ghost, are the sole causes ; — the one of its
" purchase, and the other of its application. Any such imagination, how
ever, we set altogether aside." (p. 386.)
Does he indeed ? Then when the apostle says " by grace are ye
saved through faith " (Eph. ii. 8), he must mean, "by grace ye receive
a part of -salvation through another part of the same salvation." And
when the poor anxious sinner of Phillippi was enjoined to " believe in
the Lord Jesus Christ that he might be saved" (Acts xvi. 31), the im
port of the injunction would resolve itself into this, " Saved, poor man !
why, just put forth that divine act, called faith, which is itself an all-
important part of the salvation you need, and then thou shalt obtain
salvation without fail."
(17.) But this theory of faith seems to Dr. Candlish to be the vital
principle of power in preaching, and of success in winning souls to
the Saviour. He says, —
" It is said that, by telling men that faith is the act of a living soul, and that they
cannot believe but by the energy of a new life— a life such as the creating and regen
erating Spirit alone can imparl; — we encourage them to shut their eyes and fold their
hands, and Bit down in listless and indolent expectancy, waiting for they know not
what irresistible impulse to force them into penitence and faith. It is a miserably
shallow theology that prompts the allegation. And, if possible, it is still more
toeagre metaphysics. Call a man to believe ; and at the Bame time let him imagine
that his believing is some step which, with a little supernatural help, he may reach,
as a preliminary to his new life with God. _ Then, is he not apt to feel that he may
take nis ease and, to a large extent, use his discretion, as to the time and manner of
obeying the call » But let him know that this faith is the effect or fruit of an exercise
of divine power, such as raises the dead and gives birth to a new man. Tell him that
his believing is seeing. Christ with anew eye, which God must give ; and grasping Christ
with a new hand, which God must nerve ; and cleaving to Christ with a new heart,
which God must put within him. And let it be thundered in his ear, that for all this
work of God, ' now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation.' Then, fairly

92 Vindication of the
startled, and made to know what faith is, as the act of a living soul,— and what is its
source, even the present power of the quickening Spirit, — will he not be moved to
earnestness and energy in ' seeking the Lord while he may be found, and calling upon
him while he is near ? ' (Isa. Iv. 6.) "—pp. 393. 394.
But in what way is the startled sinner to " seek the Lord while he
may be found, and to call upon him while he is near " ? Is it in un
belief, or in faith, that he is to do it ? If in the former way, will not
the apostle's theology come into collision with him, and lay an interdict
at once upon his zeal and upon his success, — " How shall they call on
him on whom they have not believed ? " (Bom. x. 14.) But if in the
latter way, then is not the poor man told that he must seek for faith by
means of faith. The means that are requisite for the attainment of
the end, involve the end, and involve it indeed as their own primary
principle. And the man therefore must get the end to begin with, that
he may by means of the end got, at length begin to ply diligently the
means in order ultimately to gain the end. But this is not only wheels
within wheels, but wheels inwheeled within themselves. It is, in an
other phase, the old pet mystery of the doctor — the mystery of existence
conceived within the womb of itself, (p. 161.)
And then when it is " thundered in the ear of the sinner, that-' now
is the accepted time and now is the day of salvation,' " the thunder
seems, at least at the first sound of the peals, to be a voice from on
high, calling upon the sinner to act, and to act without delay. But
this is only what it seems, and seems at first, to be. For if the whole
work be " a work of God," a work which he only can begin, which he
only can carry on, and which he only can end ; if it be in reality " a
divine act»" and " an exercise of divine power" ; then the thunder, when
it issues from the thunder-chamber of a preacher who is true to the
theology of Dr. Candlish, seems to be the reverse of a voice from above
downward. It rolls from below upward. And in proportion to the
loudness of its mutterings, or of its roar, it is a somewhat too peremp
tory call on the Almighty not to allow the fitting time for his work to
flit past. Man it seems has exhausted the whole resources of his
powers. And if God do not now work, he constitutes himsetf the only
Obstructive to the salvation of souls.
And yet it is this, which, in antithesis to "a miserably shallow
theology " and " still more meagre metaphysics," — it is this which is
delightfully deep divinity, and full-fleshed philosophy! We differ.
The divinity, we imagine, is not deep enough to reach within a foot
and a half of our knees. And the philosophy looks to us like bleached
bare bones, with neither eyes, nor brains, nor vital blood, nor heat, nor
heart. But as for that to which Dr. Candlish gives, by the rule of
contrasts, the designation of " meagre metaphysics," it is meagre only in
its lack of inconsistencies and self-contradictions. While the " miser
ably shallow theology " is, in its depth as well as vastness of
extent, like the ocean which engirdles and infolds the whole terres
trial globe. We should not advise Dr. Candlish to attempt to wade
across even its tiniest creek, unless he has reason to believe that he
is a very good swimmer indeed.
(18.) When a man'B " whole moral frame and mechanism are possessed

Universality of the Atonement. 93
and occupied hy God, and worked by God,"—" this," says Dr. Candlish,
" is the true freedom of the will." (p. 392.) But if it be, then the un
believing are not truly free in their wills. And if they be not, why, on
the one hand, are they called on by Dr. Candlish, to " choose " to have
Christ (p. 364) ? And why, on the other, are they blamed and pun
ished, when they choose him not ?
(19.) Dr. Candlish speaks frequently of the views which are opposed
to his own, as "dangerous errors." (p. 359, &e.) But how, we would
ask, can there be such a thing as danger, if his theory of things be
true ? Is there danger of God neglecting to save his own elect ? And
as for the unconditionally reprobate, whose doom was irrevocably fixed
long before the foundations of the earth was laid, and for whom Christ
never shed one drop of propitiatory blood, how is it possible, when
truth cannot benefit them, that error can hurt them ?
But we must stop. And in conclusion, we cannot but express our pro
found regret that the eloquence and ingenuity of Dr. Candlish should have
been enlisted and expended in the defence of a theory of theology which is
equally unscriptural, illogical, unphilosophical, unphilanthropical, andun -
evangelical. It is a system which practically ignores the one half of
the holy oracles of the Scriptures ; and it either perverts the interpre
tation of the other, or contradicts itself in the details of exposition.
Its illogical element is obtrusive. It is evidenced in the inconsistency
which subsists between its assertion of a limited provision of mercy, and
its maintenance of a universal invitation to partake of it. And it is
likewise strikingly exemplified in the summons which it addresses to
sinners in general to have faith in order to salvation, while the very
faith which it enjoins, is represented by it as part of the salvation
which is required. Such interwarping paralogisms are no sooner
grasped robustly by a controversial hand, than they strangle the very
life of the theory. The philosophy too, by which it is characterized, is
as faulty as its logic. For it not only makes a distinction of wills,
ascribing one kind to the heart, and another to the mind ; it likewise
proceeds on the assumption that the will is not really free, and thus it
raises up a contradiction to universal consciousness, and subverts, in its
negation of all veritable power to choose or to refuse, the only founda
tion of moral responsibility. Hence, too, it unconsciously joins hand in
hand, and goes heart in heart, with Heathenism and Mahommedanism
and almost all phases of Atheism, in maintaining that all things which
are, are what they are, in virtue of a strict and unalterable necessity.
When its false philosophy of will, moreover, is combined with its
maintenance of unconditional reprobation, it is thoroughly unphilan-
thropical in its tendencies. The true dignity of man, as man, is un-
discerned. And the true value of a man, as a man, is unrecognised.
And hence, instead of laying a foundation for the equal rights and equal
duties of all classes of society, and of all in all classes, it infiltrates, un
less when powerfully counteracted by influences from beyond itself,
notions which are sadly akin to arbitrary selfism, to social partiality,
and to political slavery on the one hand, and political tyranny on the
other. Above all, it misapprehends and misrepresents the character of

94 Vindication, etc.
the God of the gospel, and exhibits him in aspects which are fitted to
take down our admiration and confidence and reverence and love.
The views which it presents of his principles of procedure are apt to
rouse rebellion in the most loyal part of our nature — the conscience ;
as also, in some, to startle into scepticism or into despair, or to lull
either into spiritual indifferentism or into the lethal lethargy of inac
tivity. Happy will be the dawning of the day when Scotland shall resolve to
reconsider its entire theology, and build up from the very base, a new
and sublimer, a more capacious, and a more enduring, temple for the
worship of God.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

WHEREIN THE EVANGELICAL UNIONISTS ARE NOT WRONG BUT WRONGED.
A Eeplt to a Pamphlet by J. Gall, Jun., Edinburgh, entitled " Wherein
the Morisonians are "Wrong." Price 4d., free by post.
II.
In the Press, and will be published in a few weeks, "BIBLICAL HELP TOWARDS
HOLINESS IN LIVING AND HAPPINESS IN DYING." Price 2s. 6d., free
by post. III.
Preparing for Pcrlication, a new edition of EXPOSITION OF THE NINTH
CHAPTER OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Price 12s. Subscribers'
names will be gratefully received by A. "Wallace & Co.
IV.
A GOSPEL CATECHISM, with Notes. Price Is. 6d.
A. "Wallace & Co., 123 N. Dundas Street, Glasgow.
Of w/tom also may be had
The evangelical REPOSlTORY-^a Quarterly Magazine of Theological Litera
ture. Edited by the Eev. James Morison. Price Is., post free.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION.
"The general articles in this periodical are not simply good j they belong to a very high type
of intellectual and literary excellence. A spirit of practical religion pervades the whole, and a large
amount of biblical and other useful information is communicated in a form at once interesting and
attractive. We are unacquainted with the conductor or conductors of the Evangelical Repository :
hut looking at the many estimable traits which are displayed in his or their writings, we are
Btrongly disposed to adopt the sentiment of an ancient author- 'Cum talis sis, utinam noster
esses.' "— Londonderry Standard.
"A very able Magazine." — The Kilmarnock Post.
" There is about this Quarterly a healthy vigour which we much admire." " It may claim a
very high place among denominational Magazines." — Caledonian Mercury.
" I set a high value upon your Journal, and wish to be enrolled among your Subscribers." 
ProfessouHenby P. Tappan, D.D., LL.D.
" Paper No. — is one of the ablest and most Interesting we ever read in any Magazine or Re
view. It is worthpaying the price of the Repository many times told, for the perusal of an article
so profound, so just, so beautiful, and so full of useful influence."— The Weekly Chbistian Sews
(London.) "There is much vigorous thought and earnest piety in its pages."— The Homilist, vol. vL
"This is a thoroughly orthodox and well got up periodical."— Kilmarnock Journal.
"It is well conducted."— The Wesletan Times.
" It represents that small but increasing section of theologians in Scotland who reconcile
faith with love, and who do not build up a metaphysical divinity, alien to the simple conscious
ness of the heart." — " Altogether,— there is in this Journal abundant evidence of a deep and ener
getic vitality in the sentiments it is established to advocate."— Dundee, Perth, and Copar
Advertiser. "Indeed, it is quite obvious from the more minute as well as from the more considerable
constituents of the number before us, that the hand of a master is now upon the Evangelical Be-

pository. The brief Notices of Books are characterized by a combination of critical acumen,
breadth of view, and fearless out-spokenness, quite refreshing to meet with In these days of com
plimentary platitudes— empty as they are hollow." — The Aberdeen Free Press, Dec 12, 1856,
" Its articles are written with much ability." — The Canada Evangelist,
" I beg to offer you my best acknowledgments for the Evangelical Repository, and still more
for the able and to me only too flattering notice of the first volume of Stewart's Works. I quite
agree with you in regard to Mr. Stewart's misrepresentation of Raymond de Sebonde's doctrine."
— The Late Sir William Hamilton, Bt.
"I have read with great interest the two extremely able articles on the Plurality of Worlds.
The former is so exactly to the purport of my own remarks, though so much more compendiously
and vigorously expressed, that I must assure you I had not seen it, or I might be suspected of
borrowing and diluting"— Prop. Baden Powell, Savilian Professor or Geometry in the
University of Oxford, and Author of " The Unity of Worlds," Ac.
A Specimen Number will be sent to any address on receipt of Is., in stamps.

DOCTRINAL DECLARATION by the Conference of the Evangelical Union. Price
3d., by post 4d.