and the justice of their sentence according to the truth of the case.

If Christ does not claim the homage and the service of every man, every man is not bound to take him for a King, and to yield obedience to him. No advocate of a limited atonement has ever seen a man to whom he could not say, on scriptural grounds, that he was bound to receive Christ as his Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ has made laws for every man on the globe, laws that bind every man to repent, and to believe the gospel, and to accept salvation for his sake. If every man on the earth has not yet heard of these laws, the fault is in them who were commissioned to publish them, and not in Him who enacted them. These laws were meant and intended for "the world," and they were to be "preached to every creature." There is no limitation in the commission, or in the aspect and design of the laws. With what grace, or on what principles could the Lord Jesus Christ make laws to make the homage of the world to him binding upon them, if he laid no claims to that homage? We would think it unaccountable for a king to send edicts and messages to a province where in reality he had no power and authority. Christ lays to the services of the sinner no claim which is not founded on the blood of redemption. The sinner would never have had his existence had it not been for the mediatorial interposition of "the Seed of the woman:" to that Mediator, therefore, he owes every thing: and it is on the ground of that mediation that Christ claims every thing that he is, and every thing that he has.

The authority which Christ has by his mediation over every man, is analogous to the authority which God by his providence has over every man. God's providential power over every man is founded in every man's relation to God. It is founded upon the immutable fact that God is the Creator and the Supporter of every individual. God had not authority over Jonathan, because that he was the Creator of David, but because that he was the Creator of Jonathan himself. He had not

power over Judas because that he was a benefactor to Peter, but because he was a benefactor to Judas himself. Of the same character is the mediatorial power of Christ over sinners. He had not power over Saul of Tarsus because he died for Stephen, but because he died for Saul. He had not authority to "gather" the inhabitants of Jerusalem under his mediatorial wings because he died for his disciples, but because he made atonement for these very citizens. His intercession for

his murderers was not founded on his death for his friends, but on his death for these identical murderers. These must be self-evident verities.

On this subject, there is an argument of this kind frequently used: If Christ has authority over all, by an atonement for all, how comes it to pass that all are not saved? I can only say, that there is no difficulty in this question which does not bear as hard upon the providence of God, as upon the atonement of Christ. The long-suffering of God is as much, in tendency and design, "for salvation," as is the atonement. Let us form the query, by substituting the one word for the other, thus, "If God's long-suffering towards all, be designed for the salvation of all, how comes it to pass that all are not saved?" How will you parry it?

The fact is that both providential authority and mediatorial authority are exercised over free agents in a state of probation, and therefore liable to be rejected and renounced. The rejection of providential government does not invalidate the claims of God founded upon his relations to man as his Maker and Owner, nor does the rejection of the mediatorial sway of Christ founded on his relations to the sinner as his Mediator and Savior destroy his claims to homage and love. You do not limit "the goodness of God" to the boundaries of the mere number that it actually "leads to repentance," you know it is infinitely larger than that. You do not think that it is a dishonor to the "long-suffering of God" that it is not really successful "for salvation" to every sinner to whom it is exhibited. These things you yourself

hold as indisputable, and you do well. Then, why judgest thou thy brother, and why settest thou at nought thy brother, because that, on your own principles he thinks the atonement of Christ, like "the goodness of God," may be of wider extent than the number of sinners that actually repent; or like "the long-suffering of God," that it is not less glorious, because it does not actually save those who neglect and reject its benefits?

I am aware that the proposition, that the universal power of Christ is founded on his universal atonement, is combatted by the statement that, on this shewing, Christ has died for the beasts of the field, and for devils, over whom he certainly has authority. As brutes and devils are not under moral government ruled by hopes and fears, much less in a state of trial and probation, the quibble appears so irrelevant and sophistical as not to deserve a serious reply.

A limited atonement is inconsistent with the bountiful favors and mercies which Providence confers on all men universally.

If God has conferred any favors on offenders independently of the atonement of the Mediator, it is difficult if not impossible to say, why He could not confer all favors without it. If so, there was no necessity for the atonement. This sentiment leads straight-forwardly to Socinianism. We have already considered all providential favors as founded in the mediatorial atonement and administered on account of it. To evade this doctrine it is asserted that the ungodly obtain their mercies and favors, only for the sake of the elect, or through the church. Then, whenever an ungodly man asks a blessing on his food, he should ask it "for the elect's sake," not for Christ's sake-and he should return thanks to God in the church's name, but not in the name of Christ. The Papists would be glad of such a doctrine as would place at their disposal, the entire worthiness and merits of the church, though it would be difficult to persuade any church to believe that it has all this worthiness in it.

An atonement limited by the commercial principle of paying so much suffering for so many blessings, would be a measure of sheer absurdity. According to this commercial scheme, Christ has suffered as much as the sins of each of the elect deserved, and has purchased for them blessings in proportion to the sufferings endured for them, and these blessings he demands for them by his intercession. Then the reason why some Christians are so poor is, that the Lord Jesus Christ did not actually purchase more blessings for them. This also accounts for the low amount of their Christian graces and religious comforts; as Christ demands all that he has purchased for them, the amount communicated is small because the amount purchased is small. Here is no encouragement to grow in grace, unless we believe that more grace is purchased for us, than we actually possess. Every Christian and every minister, on this scheme enjoys as much usefulness and success as has been purchased for him, and no more. No other doctrine could provide so soft a cushion for those who are at ease in Zion.

Let us follow this commercial principle a little farther. The greater sinner an elect person is, the greater sufferings did Jesus Christ endure for him. The more Christ suffered, the more blessings did he deserve. Christ will by his intercession demand that every elect person shall have his due share in the purchased blessing. The result is, that the greater the sinner is, the greater is the amount of merit in his behalf, and the greater will be his share in the benefits of the atonement; and the more a man sins, the more will God confer blessings on him through his Son. More has been suffered, and consequently more has been merited for the sinner of sixty years, than for the sinner of six years, consequently the sinner of sixty will be entitled to more blessings than the sinner of six years. meaning of such an arrangement is that the less a man sinned, the less has Jesus Christ merited and purchased for him; and the fewer his sins, the fewer will be the

The

blessings purchased for his inheritance. Such an atonement is utterly inconsistent with the whole of the manner, in which God has conferred, and has promised to confer, the mercies of his providence.

Limitation of the atonement to a certain number is at variance with the broad principles, on which Christ carries on his intercession in heaven.

I consider the intercession of Christ to consist in the four following articles. It consists in his public and official appearance before God as the mediatorial representative of man, and the President of the universe; in his administration of all the providence of God, publicly and officially, on the ground of his atonement;—in his publicly and officially presenting to God all the services, and all the prayers, entrusted to him for presentation;-and in an official and public expression of his will, and desire, that these services and prayers may be graciously received and accepted.

In the first two articles the intercession of Christ is unbounded and interminable-of the same length and breadth, and heighth and depth, as the divine empire. In the last two articles the intercession of Christ is limited only by the limited services and prayers entrusted to him for presentation. He cannot possibly express a will or desire that services and prayers be received which are never offered. It would be ridiculous to argue that the power of presentation in a Receiver-general of the revenue is limited by the amount which he actually presents-that the liberty of a representative in the senate to present petitions is limited by the number actually presented-and that the ability of an advocate to plead is limited by the number of clients who actually employ him. Yet this is the kind of argument that has been employed to limit the intercession of Christ. And after throwing a boundary around the intercession of Christ, the abettors of a limited atonement have thought themselves as invulnerable as if they were in a magic circle.