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 absur

dity 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. From this dilemma we see no way of escape; and the abettors of the point in dispute must lay their account with being tossed on one or other of its horns, till they are pleased to abandon the untenable position they have assumed.

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 not uncommonly 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 atonement.

Add to all, that 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 of 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.

6

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 everywhere 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 antithesis; 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