from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.' (Tit. ii, 14.) This requires no comment. Those for whom Christ gave himself are a peculiar people, and not the whole race of mankind indiscriminately.

III. Opposed to these arguments are certain OBJECTIONS to the doctrine of a definite atonement, which, it is proper, we should weigh with candour, and against which it becomes us to vindicate the position we have taken up.

1. It is objected that the restriction for which we contend is derogatory to the honour and the merits of Christ.

To this we reply, that it belongs not to man to determine the share of honour due to the Saviour. This is the prerogative of God. And, supposing it admitted-which it is not that less honour would redound to Christ from his atonement being definite, if the honour of making a definite atonement is all that God designed he should have, or all which he himself claims or expects, what right have men to interfere and say it is not sufficient? On the principle on which this objection rests, might it be contended that Christ made atonement for fallen angels as well as for men. The thing with which we have to do is, not which of two suppositions reflects the greatest degree of honour on the Redeemer, but which is the fact. Jesus claims the honour only of what he performs. He makes not atonement for angels, and claims not the honour of so doing: and if he makes atonement only for some of the human family, the honour of so doing is all he requires, and more he will not receive.

But all this proceeds on the assumption, that what is alleged is the fact, namely, that the theory of our opponents is, abstractly speaking, more honouring to Christ than the doctrine for which we contend. This, however, is more than we are disposed to concede. The objection overlooks whence it is that the merit or honour of Christ's atonement proceeds; it proceeds not from its efficiency, but from its sufficiency. Its worth is to be estimated, not by what it effects, but by what it is capable of effecting. The latter arises from its intrinsic merit, and is, as we have seen, infinite: the former depends on the sovereign will of God, and may be held to be limited, as in fact it is, without detracting in the slightest degree from the honour and merit of the Saviour. The restriction of the atonement is attributable solely to the divine purpose, and leaves altogether unaffected the intrinsic merits of the Redeemer's work. Sufficiency and efficiency are not always co-extensive, even in the works of God. The evidences of revealed religion supply an apt confirmation of this

remark. Every believer in the bible must admit that these evidences are sufficient to convince all, but we know that they are efficient to convince only some. But the restricted extent of their actual efficiency is no valid objection against their perfect sufficiency. Our readers can easily apply this illustration to the point in hand.

Nor is this all. The objection may be fairly retorted on those who make it. It is, in our humble opinion, the doctrine of an indefinite atonement which reflects dishonour on Christ. We think it might safely be left to the candid decision of any unprejudiced judge to determine, whether it be more dishonouring to Christ to suppose, as our doctrine does, that all for whom he died shall be saved and finally secured in the possession of every gracious benefit; or to suppose, as the doctrine of our opponents does, that the greater number of those for whom he died shall be eternally lost, without deriving from his death a single saving blessing. No rational mind can hesitate to conclude, that it is more glorifying to the High Priest of our profession, to regard his atoning sacrifice as one which infallibly secures the eternal well-being of all for whom it was offered, than to regard it of such a nature as to admit of many for whom it was offered being doomed in justice to everlasting woe. Whether, we ask, is it more creditable to an intelligent agent to maintain that what he performs effects its design, or that it comes short to a great extent, of accomplishing the object for which it is wrought? 2. It is alleged against our view of the extent of the atonement that it supposes an unnecessary redundancy in the merits of Christ's death.

If Christ's death be, intrinsically considered, of value sufficient for all and yet designed only for some, does not this suppose a superabundance of merit, which is available for no end whatever, and with regard to which the question may be asked, To what purpose is this waste?'

To this we reply, in the first place, that, even admitting the divine intention with respect to the atonement to be unlimited, the same difficulty meets us with regard to a restricted application. Whatever is the extent of destination, it is admitted that the actual efficiency is limited. Now, as in this case the degree of available merit exceeds the extent of actual good done, every one must perceive that there is as much room as in the other case for the question, To what purpose is this waste?" The difficulty presses with as great force on tne opinion of our opponents as on ours.

6

Again, it may be remarked, that it accords with the general

procedure of God in other departments of his works, to confer his favours with a profusion which to many may seem redundant and unnecessary. For example, he causes his rain to fall on barren deserts, sterile rocks, and the watery deep, as well as on fertile hills and valleys. There are many fertile tracts of land which have never been cultivated; much spontaneous fruit grows in regions where there is not an inhabitant. And how many flowers expand their blossoms and diffuse their fragrance, in wilds where there is not a human being to admire their beauty or inhale their sweets. Are we at liberty to say that, in such cases, there is a wasteful exuberance of divine goodness or of providential care? No more can it be said that, in the case before us, there is an unnecessary redundancy of merit. We must not, in the one case any more than in the other, presume to limit the Almighty, or to sit in judgment on the works of his hands; but firmly believe it will be seen in the end that he has done nothing in vain.

Moreover; let it be observed, that the objection proceeds on the mistaken supposition, that the atonement of Christ is an exact equivalent for the sins of men, and that, had the number to be saved been either more or less than they are, or had their sins been of greater or less amount, the sufferings of the Redeemer must have varied in proportion. Now, to this view of the subject there are insuperable objections. It is at variance with what we have before established, namely, the infinite intrinsic value of Christ's atonement. It overlooks the grand design of the atonement, which was, not simply to secure a mere commutative satisfaction to the justice of God, but to glorify all the divine perfections, and to make an illustrious manifestation of the principles of his government before the whole universe of moral creatures. It leaves no room for such an unlimited offer of Christ in the gospel, as to render those who reject him without excuse; for if the atonement of Christ bore an exact proportion, in point of worth, to the sins of those who are actually saved by it, then the salvation of any others was a natural impossibility, and no blame could attach to such for neglecting to embrace the proffered boon; indeed there would be no ground on which such an offer could be made. Nay, it would require us to believe, that a far greater display of the righte ousness of God and his abhorrence at sin could have been made by the sufferings of men than by those of Christ; for, is, on the supposition in question, the number actually saved is limited, and the sufferings of Christ were an exact coun

terpart of the sufferings due to the sins of that limited number, it was only necessary that the whole human race should have suffered for their own sins, to secure an amount of suffering greatly superior to that of the Saviour of sinners. For these reasons, we reject the theory of atonement against which the objection is pointed, and hold by the view already explained, namely, that the sufferings of Christ are to be regarded in the light of a moral satisfaction to the law and justice of God, which would have been requisite had there been but one sinner to be saved, and had that sinner had but one sin, and which would have been adequate had the number to be saved been to any conceivable extent greater than it is. But to this view of the subject the objection does not apply, as the merit of the atonement is not greater than according to this, is absolutely indispensable.

3. The universal offer made of Christ in the gospel, has been urged as another objection.

6

The fact on which this objection is founded we admit without reservation. We contend for the unlimited extent of the gospel call, and regard every attempt to restrict it as hostile alike to the letter and the spirit of the gospel. Here we take the phrases every creature'-'all the world'' every one' whosoever will,' &c., in the fullest extent of acceptation of which they admit. The ministers of religion ought to esteem it a privilege and a pleasure, not less than a duty, to be permitted, as ambassadors for Christ, beseechingly to say to all who come within the reach of their voice, We pray you, in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God.' Nor is it denied that the general invitations of the gospel rest, on the atonement of Jesus Christ, as their basis. We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God, FOR he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin.' All things are ready-come unto the marriage'. (2 Cor. v. 20, 21; Matt. xxii. 4.) We do not pretend to be able to remove every difficulty, connected with the reconcilableness of the unrestricted offer of salvation and particular redemption. The subject involves all the difficulties connected with the profound abyss of the divine decrees, which it is not for short-sighted man to pretend to fathom. If we can only say what may be sufficient to nullify the objection, to show the unreasonableness of cavillers, or to remove the perplexity of humble inquirers, we shall not come short of our aim. With these views, we beg to submit with all deference, the following considerations.

It would not be a sufficient reason for rejecting, either the doctrine of a definite atonement, or that of an unlimited gos

pel call, that we found it impossible to reconcile them with one another. That we are incapable of reconciling them does not prove them to be irreconcilable. God may be capable of reconciling them; creatures of a higher intellectual and moral rank may see their reconcilableness; or we ourselves, when elevated to a brighter sphere of being, may yet be fully equal to the difficult problem. Their perfect consistency with one another, is not the ground on which we are required to believe either the one or the other. This ground is, with regard to both, the testimony of God in his word. To this testimony we must yield implicit submission, and we must beware of the daring presumption of refusing to receive what God has made known, because of its appearing to our reason either unintelligible in itself, or inconsistent with some other acknowledged dictate of inspiration.

The principles of human obligation are not affected by the secret will of God. What man ought to do, is one thing; what God will do, is another thing. Now, the gospel call may be regarded as expressive of man's duty, rather than of the divine intention. God may and does command many things, which he knows the persons commanded will never fulfil. These things it is the duty of man to do, but it is not the secret will of God to accomplish. By the warnings, and remonstrances, and solemn admonitions of Noah, he called the antediluvians to repent and be saved from the waters of the deluge; and that it was their duty to do so, is not surely disproved by what we now know, from the fact, that it was not the secret design of God to save them. By means of his servant Moses, God commanded Pharoah to let Israel go, as a means of saving his own life and those of his people; it was his duty certainly to obey this command; but it was not the secret intention of God that the Egyptians and their king should escape the destruction of the Red sea. The Jews and Roman soldiers were under obligation, from the command Thou shalt not kill,' not to put Jesus of Nazareth to death; yet it was in consequence of being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, that he was taken, and by wicked hands crucified and slain. In like manner, may we not say, that the unlimited offer of the gospel proves only that it is the duty of all men to believe in Christ for salvation, and not that it is the design or intention of God that all should be saved by him or that he should obtain salvation for all.

The unlimited nature of the gospel call necessarily results from God's plan of salvation. It is God's method to save