66 III. The extent of the atonement. A diversity of opinion on this subject, as well as upon the nature of the atonement, has been occasioned by the different senses in which the word is used. Some writers understand the phrases bought with a price, redeemed, ransomed,” in some degree literally, and consider the atonement as including reconciliation with God, and the consequent salvation. In this sense, all for whom the atonement was made will infallibly be saved, for the debt against them being cancelled, they must be released. They who thus define the word atonement, are obliged either to limit its extent, or admit the doctrine of universal salvation. Accordingly they maintain, as they ought with their view of the subject, that Christ died only for those whom God purposed to savethat he paid for none else the price of redemption. Other writers make a distinction between the atonement, and the bestowment of its spiritual benefits. They consider the atonement itself as the ground of justification, but maintain that although it enables, it does not oblige God to but one God. This is the sum of our knowledge concerning the "great mystery," and we shall perplex ourselves to no purpose, by prying into a subject which never may, perhaps never can be otherwise revealed than it is, even to the angels. Here faith must lean in silence on her beloved and wonder-and adore ! Mat. 28. 19: 16. 27: John 5. 37: 1 John 5.7: Rom. 15. 30 : 2 Thess. 3. 5 : 2 Cor. 13. 14: John 14. 16: Acts 5. 3, 4: 20.28. : : save sinners. They suppose the peculiarity of redemption to consist in the sovereignty of its application. The ground of distinction between the atonement as here defined, and the application of its merits, is supported by many passages of Scripture. It is evident that the death of Christ avails nothing to salvation, until its benefits are received by faith. This is illustrated in the instance of Paul. While “ breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,” he was treading the broad way to perdition, as certainly as any of the Jews who rejected the promised Messiah, and perished in their sins. The Scriptures confirm this assertion. If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another; and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1. 7.) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Rom. 8. 1.) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already. (John 3. 18.) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3. 36.) There is, then, a foundation for the distinction which has been noticed, and ground for the belief that the redemption by Christ is general in its nature, and limited only by the sovereign pleasure of God in its saving application. There is, however, no very material difference in the two views which have been given. They who maintain that Christ died only for a part of mankind, admit that his sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all, and might be the ground of salvation for all, if God were disposed universally to apply its benefits. Calvin on Rom. 5. 18. says, that “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered indiscriminately for all men, by the goodness of God.” The Synod of Dort, although they believed that "it was the will of God that Christ, by the blood of the cross should efficaciously redeem all those, and those only, who were from eternity elected to salvation and given to him by the Father,” admit that “the death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” On this ground they maintain that the gospel, with its promises and commands, ought to be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, and add that if “many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this proceeds not from any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross, but from their own fault." The advocates of general redemption admit * See also Witsius' Economy, Vol. I. chap. ix, also, that none will be saved by the sacrifice of Christ, but those whom God has purposed to make partakers of its efficacy. These two views of the atonement, therefore, agree in the most important point, and tend essentially to the same practical results. The latter view, however, generally prevails, and deserves a more particular consideration. The doctrine of universal atonement, or that Christ“ gave himself a ransom for all,” is consonant with reason and Scripture. If " by one man's disobedience all were constituted sinners, it is rational that the “free gift should come upon all”-be granted indiscriminately on the exercise of faith, “unto justification of life.” God scatters his blessings with a liberal hand, untrammelled by pecuniary considerations, and leaves his creatures responsible for the use which they make of them. The rain which descends on the fruitful field, falls on briars and thorns, the desert, and the ocean. But we abide by the testimony of the Scriptures. They speak of the atonement as general. A few passages only can be excepted, and these are reconcilable with the many passages of more comprehensive meaning. If Christ said, I lay down my life for the sheep, (John 10. 15.) and, I pray not for the world, (John 17. 9.) it does not follow that he did not lay down his life for all. He said to the afflicted Gentile mother, I am not man. sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and yet he granted her request. (Mat. 15. 24.) ( But let us consider what elsewhere is said of the mission of Christ. God sent not his Son into the world to condem the world, but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3. 17.) And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2. 2.) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (John 1.9.) We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead, (2 Cor. 5. 15.) That he by the grace of God should taste death for every (Heb. 2. 9.) Who gave himself a ransom for all. (1 Tim. 2. 6.) The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6. 51. See also Heb. 7. 25. and John 12. 47.) The invitations and promises also of the gospel are made to all.* The Spirit and the bride *" If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of a debt, if the measure of his sufferings were according to the number of those for whom he died, and to the degree of their guilt, in such a manner as that, if more had been saved, or if those who are saved had been more guilty, his sorrows must have been proportionally increased ; it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations. But it would be equally inconsistent with the free forgiveness of sin, and with sinners being directed to apply for mercy as supplicants, rather than as claimants. I conclude, therefore, that an hypothesis, which in so many important points is manifestly inconsistent with the Scriptures, cannot be true. On the other hand, if the atonement of Christ proceed not on |