and in whom compassion flows, is utterly inconceivable. We hold, then, the limited diffusion of the gospel to be demonstrative of the definite nature of Christ's atonement.

7. We take the liberty of adverting to the absurdity that attends every other supposition but that of a definite atone

ment.

There are, as we have seen, only four suppositions on the subject:-that Christ died, either for some of the sins of all men; or for all the sins of all men; or for all the sins of some men; or for the sins of no one in particular, but for sin in general. The first is held by none: the third is that which it is our object to prove: the second and fourth are what are held by the opponents of our doctrine; and these, we are now to show, involve such as maintain them in absurdity. That Christ made atonement for all the sins of all men, is a supposition fraught with absurdity. As we have already seen, it supposes him to be the Saviour of those who are never saved, the Redeemer of those who are never redeemed, the Deliverer of thousands who are never delivered, but remain under eternal condemnation. But this is not the absurdity we have at present in view. When those who hold the sentiment that Christ made atonement for the sins of all men, are asked, why, in this case, it happens that any are condemned? they readily reply, that salvation was procured for men on the condition that they should believe, and, not believing, they of course cannot be saved. The reason, in short, why many of those for whom Christ died, fail to reap the benefits of his death, is their unbelief. Now here is a series of absurdities. It is supposed, for one thing, that many are condemned for unbelief, although, as we have seen, they had not an opportunity of believing, never having been put in possession of the gospel. Then, again, it is supposed that men are able of themselves to believe-that faith is a spontaneous act of the natural man, irrespective of the death of Christ, and that without which the death of Christ can have no efficacy; whereas, according to the scriptures, faith is the gift of God, an act of the new man only, and an effect, not the cause, of the efficacy of Christ's death This being the case, it is absurd to talk of its being the condition of man's salvation, on the fulfilment of which the effect of the atonement hinges. For, if man cannot believe of himself, if the power to do so is God's gift, conferred out of respect to and in consequence of the virtue of Christ's atonement, it is as absurd to speak of Christ's making atonement for men on condition that they believe, as it would be to offer a blind man a sum

of money on condition that he will open his eyes. Besides, on this supposition, the death of Christ might have been utterly and for ever unavailing, with respect to the whole human race. The efficacy of the atonement is thus suspended on the condition of man's belief; the reason why it proves inefficacious, in the case of any, is the unbelief of the persons in question; but had all chosen not to believe-and what some do, all might have done the atonement had been rendered altogether useless. Every view of salvation, then, is absurd, which does not provide security for the existence of faith in all for whom it is designed. Christ died, not to render salvation possible merely, but certain.

Nor are these the only absurdities with which this supposition is burdened. The benefit of Christ's atonement, it is said, extends not to all men, because of the unbelief of some. But unbelief is either a sin or not a sin. If it is not a sin, it is unaccountable that any should be condemned, or come short of salvation, on account of it. If a sin, Christ either made atonement for it, or did not make atonement for it. If Christ made atonement for the sin of unbelief in all men, it is inconceivable that any should perish on account of that sin. If Christ did not make atonement for it, then he made not atonement for all the sins of all men. To say then that Christ made atonement for all the sins of all men, and yet that many perish because of unbelief, is absurd.

That Christ made atonement for no man's sins in particular, but for sin in general, is a supposition as absurd as that we have now exposed. We are afraid the idea is too commonly entertained, that the death of Christ was only a public exhibition of God's displeasure at sin, introduced simply with a view to maintain the honour of the divine moral government. Not to mention other objections to this view of the subject, we remark at present that it leads to absurdity. Christ, according to this, did not die for sinners but for sin. But sin, apart from sinners, has no counterpart in nature; it is a metaphysical abstraction, a nonentity. Sin is a moral quality, which, like all other qualities, supposes necessarily a subject to which it belongs; and it were every whit as rational to talk of redness existing apart from an object that is red, or roundness apart from an object that is round, as of sin apart from a sinner. Separate sin from sinners and you have a mere abstraction, for which it is dishonouring to the character of the blessed Saviour to suppose him to make atone

ment.

Besides, sin in general,-sin in the abstract, includes the

sin of angels as well as that of men. And, if Christ died only to make a public display of the divine abhorrence at sin in general, we see not why the extent of the atonement should be limited even to the human family; we see not why, besides comprehending the whole race of man, it should not also embrace all the fallen angels without exception. So absurd in itself, and so subversive in its tendency of the whole gospel economy, is the supposition we have thus endeavoured to overthrow.

8. But let us close our proof with a direct appeal to the testimony of the divine word.

What say the scriptures? The arguments already adduced, it is not doubted, are scriptural arguments. They are founded on views of the divine character, the covenant of grace, and the Saviour's work, which are taken from the word of God. But, in advancing them, we may be said rather to be 'reasoning out of the scriptures,' than to be appealing directly to the scriptures themselves. The former line

of procedure serves to show the harmony of our doctrine with the system of revealed truth at large: the latter calls the attention to individual texts which have a direct bearing on the subject, and which, by confining ourselves to the other, would be in danger of being overlooked. We shall give a specimen of the texts which might easily be marshalled in overpowering numbers, and this we shall do in the order of the books of scripture in which they occur.

We pass over the old testament writings, with one remark of a general kind, namely, that they every where suppose and recognize a distinction between the people of God or the Israelites, and the Gentiles or the nations of the world: and that the benefits of the sacrificial rite, which prefigured the atonement of Christ, were exclusively limited to those who are included under the former description. This distinction is incorporated in the very first intimation given to man of the divine Victim, an intimation in which the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the woman are placed in striking and instructive contrast; nor is it ever afterwards suffered to drop out of sight. We wait not to advert, in particular, to such expressions as these, 'For the transgression of my people was he stricken,' He bare the sins of many;' but proceed to the writings of the new testament, to which we principally make appeal in this department of our argument.

Let the reader candidly peruse these words-Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father

which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me ye that work iniquity.' (Matt. vii, 21-23.) Here a broad line of distinction is drawn between two classes of the human family, with respect to one of which the Saviour makes the appalling affirmation, I never knew you." The import of the words, according to scripture usage, it is by no means difficult to ascertain. The doctrine of the Saviour's omniscience precludes the idea that simple knowledge is all that is designed. The antagonist assertions, You only have I known of all the families of the earth,' and 'The Lord knoweth them that are his,' (Amos iii, 2; 2 Tim. ii, 19,) leave us no room to hesitate. The reference can only be to a special saving cognizance, of which some are the objects, and others not. But with what shadow of plausibility can such knowledge be denied, with regard to any for whom Jesus suffered, whose sins he actually bore in his own body on the tree? Are there any such whom he never knew?

In the following passages, the distinction made between the sheep and the goats or the wolves, for the former of whom only Christ is said to lay down his life, ought to be carefully marked and duly weighed:-I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for THE SHEEP. I lay down my life for THE SHEEP. But ye believe not, because ye are not of MY SHEEP, as I said unto you. MY SHEEP hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.' (John x, 11, 15, 26, 27, 28.) Besides the restriction of the atonement, to the sheep, the identity of those for whom he laid down his life and those to whom is given eternal life so that they shall never perish, is deserving of particular notice.

The singularly decided passage in our Lord's intercessory prayer has already been commented on, and here requires only to be noted:- I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given me. For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am." (John xvii, 9, 19, 24.)

Paul says, • But God commended his love towards 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.' (Rom. v, 8, 9.) We know not how it could be more clearly taught that those for whom Christ died are justified by his blood and delivered from the wrath to come; but this cannot be affirmed of all. To the same purpose this apostle gives utterance to the challenge, 'Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died.' The death of Christ is thus supposed to be the best possible security against condemnation: none for whom Christ died can ever be exposed to the curse; but there are some on whom the curse will press for ever: of course it cannot be said that for such Christ died.

The next text we adduce is this:- For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' (2 Cor. v, 21.) It will be allowed, that by Christ being made sin, is meant his suffering for our atonement. But the object of his being made sin is, that those for whom he is so made, might be made the righteousness of God in him. These are of the same extent, as regards the persons interested in them. They are, in fact, the very same persons for whom he was made sin, and who are, in consequence, made the righteousness of God in him. Now, that all are not made the righteousness of God in Christ need not be proved; and we have only to draw the inference, that for all he has not been made sin.

Two other kindred passages may close this department of proof:-Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.' (Eph. v, 25.) Two points, in favour of our position, are furnished by this text: in the first place, it is the church, and not the world, for which Christ gave himself; and, in the second place, the love of Christ, by which he was actuated in so doing, is peculiar and exclusive towards the church, as that of husbands is required to be toward their wives. The latter consideration completely sets aside the discreditable shift by which some have endeavoured to get rid of this passage, namely, by alleging that Christ's giving himself for the church does not imply that he gave himself for no others. On this principle, we should be obliged to admit that Christ's loving the church does not imply that he loved none else; and, then, what becomes of the passage as setting forth an example or pattern for the imitation of husbands? Analogous to this text is that of the same apostle, in his epistle to Titus:-'Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us