meaning of the passages is destroyed, if we admit that his death was intended equally for all men. But besides those texts which expressly teach the doctrine of a definite atonement, there are many other arguments deducible from Scripture, by which the same doctrine can be proved. On these our limits will not permit us to dwell at any length. We can do little more than glance at a few of them.

And, first, It is evident from the nature of the atonement, that it could not be intended for all men. Were it, indeed, a mere satisfaction to public justice-a mere display of God's displeasure at sin for rectoral purposes, according to the theory of our opponents, no valid argument against its universality could be founded on its nature. Such an atone

ment might, we grant, consistently embrace all mankind; nay, we see no reason why it might not also be extended to the fallen angels. Admitting, however, that the atonement, according to the Calvinistic theory, was a satisfaction to strict justice, so fulfilling the claims of the broken law for all in whose behalf it was made as to procure for them deliverance from the curse, and a title to eternal life,-taking this view of the nature and design of the transaction, it could not be intended for the whole human race, but only for those who were given to Christ by the Father, and who are eventually saved.

Again, Christ, in dying, sustained a special relation to the objects of his death. He died for them in the character of a "shepherd," a "hus band," a "surety and representative," and the "captain of their salvation." But these are relations which he does not sustain to all mankind. He is the shepherd of the " sheep," the husband of the "Church," the surety and representative of "his seed," and the captain of salvation to the "many sons" whom God brings to glory. It will not be alleged that the parties so designated include all human beings. Such designations are never applied by the sacred writers to mankind universally, but only to the elect or believers. If Christ then died as a shepherd, a husband, &c., his death could be designed only for the persons to whom he sustained these relations.

Further, Christ is represented as bearing a special love to all for whom he died. It was his love to them which led him to become their substitute, and lay down his life for them. His death is always ascribed to this cause," who loved me," says Paul, "and gave himself for me." "Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood," &c. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends; but God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." Such statements as these imply that the death of Christ was the highest possible manifestation and proof of divine love, and that none can be the objects of a more transcendent, peculiar and ineffable love than the persons for whose sakes this death was endured. Now we know that the elect are the objects of Christ's special love; certainly they occupy a higher place in his regards than the rest of mankind. Yet if he died for all, it will follow, that he did not love the elect more than others that he loved all equally-Judas as much as Peter-the reprobate as much as his own chosen people.

In the next place, Christ makes intercession for all for whom he

offered sacrifice. These are the two functions of his priesthood, and, being parts of the same office, they must be of the same extent with respect to their objects. His intercession proceeds on the ground of his sacrifice, and is intended to carry its design into effect. Christ appears as an advocate in the court of heaven to plead the cause of those for whom he shed his blood on earth; and we cannot suppose him excluding from the benefit of his advocacy any who were included in his propitiatory work. The high priest under the law made intercession within the vail for all for whom he offered sacrifice. He did not exercise the one function in behalf of any for whom he did not also perform the other part of his sacerdotal office. And as both were conjoined and exercised on behalf of the same object in the type, so are they in the antitype. "It is Christ that died," says Paul, "who also maketh intercession for us," Rom. viii. 34. And another apostle remarks," We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins." 1 John ii. 1, 2. It is evident then that the atonement and intercession of Christ terminate on the same objects. But the latter does not include all mankind. It is restricted to the elect. "I pray not for the world," says he," but for them whom thou hast given me," John xvii. 9. His sacrifice must, therefore, have been restricted to the same individuals. If it is for the elect alone that he pleads his atoning blood, it must have been for them that he shed it.

We observe, again, that the doctrine of a definite atonement may be argued from the connection between the atonement and the gift of the spirit. "If I go not away," said Jesus to the disciples, " the Comforter will not come, but, if I depart, I will send him unto you;" words which imply that one design of the Saviour's death was to make way for the mission of the Spirit to open up a channel for his sacred influences, and to secure the communication of them to the souls of men. If so, it is reasonable to infer that the spirit will be given to all for whom that death was intended. The legal obstruction which stood in the way of the bestowment of the Spirit on sinners, for the renovation of their moral natures, was their guilt the claims which law and justice had against them; and can we suppose that the Spirit's influences will be withheld from any for whom Christ has removed this obstruction, whose guilt he has expiated by fulfilling all righteousness in their room? Besides, the great design of the work of the Spirit is to carry out the design of Christ's atonement by revealing and applying it to sinners. "He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." And if it be the office of the Spirit to apply the atonement, doubtless he will apply it to all the persons for whom it was wrought out. The work of the Spirit, however, is confined to the elect, as our opponents themselves admit. An extreme section of the party, we are aware, contend for an universal divine influence, as well as for an universal atonement; but the generality, even of the new school divines, still admit and hold that the Spirit is given only to the elect; and if his work is limited to that definite number, the work of Christ cannot be more extensive. The latter cannot be supposed to have purchased redemption for any to whom the Spirit is not commissioned to apply it.

The same doctrine may be inferred from the connection between the

atonement and the actual salvation of its objects. This argument has been partly anticipated, but it deserves further notice. The sacred writers always represent the atonement as connected with saving results, sometimes with the justification of the parties for whom it was made, as in Isa. liii. 2, " By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities;" and Rom. iv. 25, "Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." In other places sanctification and glorification are connected in the same manner with the atonement: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify us unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." And Christ is said to have "given himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle." In Rom. v. 10, the apostle argues, "that if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life;" and, in the following passage, he represents God's delivering up Christ to die for our sins as the greatest gift which he could bestow, and as a sure pledge for the bestowment of all other blessings. "For if God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things." If the apostle's argument has any force, it must imply, that the blessings of salvation shall certainly be bestowed on all for whom Christ was delivered up; and since they are bestowed on the elect alone, it necessarily follows, according to Paul's reasoning, that Christ was delivered up only for that definite number. In fine, the doctrine for which we plead may be inferred from the absurd consequences to which the opposite doctrine leads. For, first, if Christ died for all men, then, in the case of multitudes, he must have died in vain. We know that a large proportion of mankind ultimately perish. Whether these shall at last form the majority we stay not to inquire, but, unquestionably, vast numbers are consigned to perdition. If the atonement then was intended for the whole race, its benevolent design has, certainly, to a great extent, been defeated. Again, if Christ died for all, it will follow, that all who perish are punished, and that eternally, for sins which have been atoned for, the punishment due to which, has already been inflicted on another in their room; so that here we have divine justice exacting satisfaction from sinners themselves, after having received it from their surety-accepting the ransom, yet refusing to let the captives go free! Further, if Christ died for all, then he atoned for the sins of many to whom the atonement is never offered. Our opponents are accustomed to vindicate the divine procedure in the final punishment of the wicked, on the ground of their voluntary rejection of the provided remedy; but are there not myriads to whom that remedy is never made known, and who have no opportunity of availing themselves of it? Indeed, the greatest part of mankind are placed in these circumstances; only a small portion of them have been, or are yet favoured with the light of the gospel; and can it be supposed that Christ really shed his blood for all who have perished in the dark places of the earth? Yet he must have done so, if the theory of our opponents be correct; so that, according to this theory, we have an atonement provided at an infinite expense for parties, an immense proportion

of whom were not only never to be savingly benefited by it, but never to have it presented to their acceptance, or revealed to them. In one word, if Christ died for all, then he died for many who, at the very time he was making atonement for their sins, were in the place of woe, and thus in circumstances which precluded the possibility of their receiving any benefit from it.

REVIEW.

"THE HEADSHIP OF CHRIST, AS AFFECTED BY NATIONAL CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS:

A LECTURE, Delivered in West George Street Chapel, on THE EVENING OF LORD'S DAY, 2D MAY 1847; BEING THE FIRST OF A SERIES, BY MINISTEers of diffERENT DENOMINATIONS, UNDERTAKEN AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE GLASGOW VOLUNTARY CHURCH ASSOCIATION. BY RALPH WARDLAW, D.D. GLASGOW: JAMES MACLEHOSE, BUCHANAN STREET. A. & C. BLACK, EDINBURGH; AND JACKSON & Walford, LONDON. 1847."

Most of our readers remember the Voluntary controversy. It began with the publication of Dr Marshall's Missionary Sermon in the spring of 1829, and, in so far as victory in public argument was concerned, it terminated with the famous Belfast discussion, which completely cleared the field by a whirlwind of argumentative sarcasm.

In the overruling providence of God much good resulted, indirectly, from this controversy; but it was the instrument of no direct good either to the world or the Church. No addition was made to our previous stock of knowledge; no new principles were ascertained and established; nor was there any very elevated or philosophic view given of truths already known. The war was very much one of party interests and party passions, and hence it was barren in those generous, and enlarged, and noble views, which are sure to be revealed to those who follow and defend truth as the cause of God, and not as the cause of a party. One may read the whole literature of the Voluntary controversy from beginning to end, and he will find in it little to exalt his understanding; little to gratify a disciplined taste; little to expand and liberalise his heart; little to give him any thing else than a very moderate degree of respect for the intellect and the Christianity of the nineteenth century.

While it added nothing to the domains of truth, the Voluntary controversy made fatal and extensive inroads on those of charity. The peace of neighbourhoods and families was broken; missionary and bible societies were dissolved or greatly injured; jealousies and strifes were engendered between evangelical churches; the grossest exaggerations, and the most offensive and discreditable personalities were publicly circulated by the platform and the press; in short, the track of the Voluntary controversy, like that of the canker worm, the caterpillar, or the locust, as described in Scripture, was every where marked by desolation.

The close of the Voluntary controversy was not followed by peace to the Church and the country. Within the United Secession Church, and among the Independent congregations, it was followed by those unfortunate and unhinging discussions respecting the vital doctrine of the atonement, by which these communities were painfully agitated, and from the baneful effects of which they have not yet recovered. Within the Established Church the Voluntary controversy was followed by the war of independence, and by the disruption of the Church of Scotland, that wonderful event which has shaken society to its deepest foundations, and affected the world to its farthest extremities. Amid these conflicts of the friends of truth, Antichrist was looking on with malignant satisfaction; dexterously coinciding, at the same time, with the liberal party in the north, and with the extreme high church party in the south, he has obtained a position of recognised influence and power, and is silently augmenting and concentrating his forces to do battle against all that remains of reformed Christianity in Britain.

After these long and exciting conflicts among evangelical Christians, and in this formidable position of the Antichristian power, it is surely desirable that there should, as far as possible, be internal concord among Protestants. The whole Church has been crying out for peace; parties have begun to see that incessant storms are not more favourable to the productions of the spiritual world, than they would be to the fruits of the earth; and the Evangelical Alliance has been organised for the express purpose of promoting a good understanding and kindly feelings among all that love the Lord Jesus in truth and in sincerity. In these circumstances, what could an enemy to the Evangelical Alliance, what could the worst enemy to that peace and unity of which the Alliance is the symbol, what could a Jesuit who wished to divide the counsels and weaken the forces of Protestantism, propose as more likely to gain his end, than an attempt to blow up into their former fierceness, the almost extinguished flames of the Voluntary controversy?

We regret, therefore, to observe, from the title-page of Dr Wardlaw's Lecture, that the "voice" of our Voluntary brethren in the west, "is still for war," and that they are using means, the nature of which, as we shall see afterwards, is exceedingly questionable, to renew party discussions, and inflame party passions on this litigated point. To do so, is to adopt measures that are surely not demanded by duty, which are disowned by wisdom, and repudiated by Christian patriotism; because, if successful in producing an agitation, they will exasperate the minds, and alienate. the hearts of evangelical Christians, and thus exhaust that strength in miserable wranglings with one another, which ought all to be directed against the great and noted foes of Protestantism and Christianity, by whose immense force we are now confronted.

We have said that there is no need of renewing the Voluntary controversy. The United Presbyterian Church, which probably contains ninetenths of the Voluntaryism of Scotland, has hitherto made the Voluntary question a matter of forbearance. All the ministers and all the members of that Church, may, in perfect consistency, believe and maintain the principle of establishments. In the estimation of that Church, as a Church, therefore, Voluntaryism is a mere matter of opinion, and not of