any one of them, and it will be instantly seen to nullify all the rest. They resolve themselves into supreme divinity, perfect humanity, and divine appointment. These, not singly but together, are what conferred on the sufferings and death of our Mediator that high character of intrinsic and relative worth, which rendered them a complete atonement to the law and justice of God for the sins of men. Without these, they had had no efficacy. In this case, the dying conqueror had never given utterance to the expiring shout of exultation, “ It is finished :" Never had he arisen from the grave, and ascended to glory, and sat down at the right hand of God, amid the welcoming shouts of enraptured seraphim: The mediatorial glory which eclipses the splendors of the shekinah, had never thrown around him its celestial radiance : Nor had the sceptre of universal empire ever been put into his hand. From the perfection of his atonement, arising out of the circumstances specified above, does it proceed, that he makes intercession for us within the vail of the upper sanctuary ; that he dis

; penses with a munificent hand the gifts of his purchase, and causes the prey of a great spoil to be divided. And peace, and pardon, and redemption, and holiness, and eternal glory, are among the rich fruits of the royal and triumphant conquest he achieved, when, by his infinitely meritorious death, he spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly. With the most entire confidence, then, may the needy sinner, sınitien with the deepest sense of conscious unworthiness, relv for salvation on this all-sufficient atonement.

SECTION XI.

EXTENT OF Christ's ATONEMENT.

The point of which we are now to treat has been extensively agitated, as well in ancient as in modern times. At a very remote period, Faustus, the leader of the Pelagians, and Sirmandus, an acknowledged Semipelagiản, advocated the sentiment that Christ died for all men ; and were opposed by Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, Remigius, and other fearless defenders of the truth. In the Romish church, this controversy was carried on with no small degree of warmth, the Jesuits espousing the one side, and the Jansenists the other. From the Papists it passed to the Protestants, Lutherans and Arminians advocating the cause of universality, while the Calvinists contended for a definite or restricted extent. The opinion of the remonstrants on this topic was pointedly condemned by the synod of Dort.* It still constitutes a prominent feature in the controversy between Arminians and Calvinists ; and even some, who are otherwise free from the Arminian taint, have adopted notions on this point that are at variance with the Calvinistic creed. Thd Hopkinsian controversy, which has of late distracted the American churches, involves, amongst its peculiarities, the point in question. And in our own country, as cannot but be known to many of our readers, the question respecting the extent of Christ's atonement has been agitated of late with considerable keenness; nor has the side of what we conceive to be truth, been always espoused by those who are otherwise evangelical in their doctrinal opinions.

I. Before going into anything like argument, it will be proper to attend to some preliminary EXPLANATIONS. On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opin

ions that have long divided the church are expressed by the terms definite and indefinite. The former means that Christ died, satisfied divine justice, and made atonement, only for such as are saved. The latter means that Christ died, satisfied divine justice, or made atonement, for all mankind without exception, as well those who are not saved as those who are. The one regards the death of Christ as a legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God on behalf of elect sinners: the other regards it as a general moral vindication of the divine government, without respect to those to whom it may be rendered effectual, and of course equally applicable to all. The former opinion, or what is called definite atonement, is that which we adopt, and which we shall endeavor to explain, prove, and defend, in our subsequent observations. It may be thus stated :-THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST MADE ATONEMENT TO GOD BY HIS DEATH, ONLY FOR THE SINS OF THOSE, TO WHOM, IN THE SOVEREIGN GOOD PLEASURE OF THE ALMIGHTY, THE BENEFITS OF HIS DEATH SHALL BE FINALLY APPLIED. By this definition, the extent of Christ's atonement is limited to those who ultimately enjoy its fruits; it is restricted to the elect of God, for whom alone we conceive him to have laid down his life. However, to prevent mistakes, and to give us a clear understanding of the point in dispute, it may be necessary to offer a few explanatory remarks.

1. The point in dispute, let it be carefully observed, does not respect the intrinsic worth of Christ's death. This is admitted, on both hands, to be infinite. There is no room for controversy here. As has been shown in the preceding section, the inherent worth of Christ's atonement arises not from the nature, intensity, or continuance of his sufferings, but from his personal dignity and other concurrent circumstances, which stamp a character of infinite value on all that he endured. this ground we hold that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ possessed an intrinsic value sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. In this sense it was adequate to the redemption of every human beingable to procure the expiation of every man's sins that

On

ever existed, or ever shall exist to the end of time. Here we feel no hesitation ; nor can we qualify these assertions in the slightest degree. We shall yield to none in our estimate of the intrinsic worth of Christ's atonement. That worth we hold to be, in the strictest sense of the term, INFINITE-ABSOLUTE-ALL-SUFF[CIENT. If sufficiency were the point on which the controversy turned, it might soon be ended ; and we are strongly inclined to believe, that nothing more than this is meant by many of those who contend for Christ's having died for all men: it is with such persons a mistake of words more than of opinion. In the fullest sense of the terms, then, we regard the atonement of Christ as suFFICIENT FOR ALL. This all-sufficiency is what lays foundation for the unrestricted universality of the Gospel call. And from every such view of the atonement as would imply that it was not sufficient for all, or that there was not an ample warrant in the invitations of the Gospel for all to look to it for salvation, we utterly dissent. Against every such limitation or restriction we enter our solemn and deliberate protest, as alike dishonoring to Christ, and unwarranted by the testimony of Scripture. Nor would we hesitate for a moment to adopt the following strong protestation of an eminent writer, as expressive of our own settled conviction on the subject : -“Such is my impression of its sufficiency, that were all the guilt of all the millions of mankind that have ever lived concentrated in my own person, I should see no reason, relying on that blood which cleanseth from all sin, to indulge despair."*

2. Neither does the present controversy turn on the application of Christ's atonement. The extent of application is also allowed, on both hands, to be limited. Our opponents must admit that the atonement is made effectual only to some. Only such as believe, ultimately come to share in the benefits of the Redeemer's purchase ; and it is admitted that all men have not faith. There have been persons—as Puccius and Huberas among the ancients—who have maintained

that all men actually reap the saving benefits of Christ's blood ; and there are those even in our own day, who contend for the ultimate eternal welfare of the whole race of mankind : but as these sentiments are held in connection with the most vague and erroneous views of the nature of the Redeemer's work, in connection in short wiih a denial of the doctrine of atonement, with those who maintain them we cannot consider ourselves as having at present any dispute. Those with whom we contend restrict the application of atonement to believers, while they allow that many shall perish finally and eternally in a state of unbelief.

3. The present question, then, hinges solely on the divine intention regarding the subjects of atonement, or what is called the destination of Christ's death. This, some maintain, extends to all mankind, without exception, and not to those merely who are saved by it in the end. This is the turning point of the controversy. The question is not, whether Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, or whether all finally enjoy the benefit of his atonement: but whether it was the secret design, intention, or determination of God that his Son should make atonement for all, or only for the select specified number who are finally saved. Now, confining ourselves to the divine intention or design regarding the objects of the atonement, there are only these supposable cases, one of which must constitute the truth on this important and much litigated point:-The design or intention of God must have been, that his Son should make atonement by his death ;-either for some of the sins of all menor for all the sins of ALL men-or for all the sins of some menor for the sins of no man in particular, but for sin IN GENERAL. The first of these suppositions we do not know to be held by any : nor is this wonderful, when it is considered, that to die for only some of the sins of men would avail nothing for salvation, as what remained unatoned for would be sufficient to insure condemnation. The second and the fourth are involved in one another, as the advocates of universal or indefinite atonement seem to mean, by Christ's dying for the sins