own atonement. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." John iii, 14, 15. This universality he explains and confirms, by asserting in the 17th verse, "that the world through him might be saved." This universality is further shadowed forth in the sacrifices appointed by the Jewish law, especially by the lamb of the daily offering, and by the sacrifice offered up at the yearly feast of expiration. Num. xxviii, 3, 4. Lev. xvi, 7-34. It is in reference to the lamb of the daily burnt offering that our Lord is more particularly called a Lamb. It is in this character that John the Baptist describes Christ as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," plainly implying that there was the same relation between the atonement of Christ and all the inhabitants of the world, as there was between the lamb of the burnt offering and the whole of the Jewish nation. It is in reference to this that the apostle John in his Apocalyptic visions describes the atonement of Christ as "a Lamb in the midst of the throne of God," that is connected with all the measures appointed by the throne, and with all the services received by the throne. On the great day of the annual expiration the atonement of the scape-goat was offered unto the Lord. This atonement had a universal influence upon all the interests of all the Jewish tribes. The provision runs thus: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and ALL their transgressions in all their sin―and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited." And again, "The Priest shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation; and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year." These sacrifices of the Jews were related to them all, were designedly offered up for all, and were truly available to all. The atonement effected by them was unlimited in design and aspect. This ceremonial atonement did not consist in the sacrificial victim suffering the identical punishment due to the offender, but in substitutionary sufferings; for the blasphemer was to be stoned to death, but the sacrifice for him was not to die by stoning, Lev. xxiv, 16; v, 4-6. Nor did the Jewish atonement consist in inflicting upon the victim a certain amount of torture and pain, in proportion to the number and enormity of the sins to be expiated. The instructions which Moses gave concerning these sacrifices are distinct, minute, and even punctilious; but there is not a jot nor a tittle in them all to warrant an opinion held by some, that Christ would have had to suffer more, had there been more to be saved; and less, had the number of the elect been less. Universal as was the bearing of these sacrifices yet they were susceptible of failure. They might fail of their design, not through a deficiency of extensiveness in them, but through the voluntary neglect or misimprovement of those for whom they were offered. The atonement offered on the great day of annual expiation was intended to take away "all the iniquities of the children of Israel," Lev. xvi, 22. This the atonement, would effectually accomplish to all those who, according to the arrangements of that atonement, “ afflicted their souls, and did no manner of work on that day." If it was offered designedly for all the tribes, will it not infallibly secure all its ends to all the tribes? No, "For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted [in contrition] in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people," and that notwithstanding the atonement offered for him, Lev. xxxiii. 27.. The Jews, when they saw these persons "cut off," because they neglected the provisions of the atonement, never thought of arguing that the atonement was never designed for them. It seems to me, then, that all the leading principles of the Old Testament types and shadows are opposed to the doctrine that limits the atonement of Christ to a certain amount of sin, or to a certain number of sinners. 3. The opinion that the atonement was designed for a few only, is opposed to the entire system of doctrinal truths revealed in the scriptures. A full discussion of this proposition would require a volume, rather than a page or two; my limits therefore will only allow me to supply a few hints of proof and elucidation. Were this opinion consistent with scriptural doctrine, it would be possible to express it in scriptural language. At least the spirit and the animus of the opinion would be found in scriptural statements, if not the letter and the form of it. Let any one find chapter and verse that will justify such language as the following: "Christ died for the elect, and the elect only." "He gave himself a ransom for the sheep only." "Whom he predestinated, them he also purchased, and whom he purchased, them he also called." No; there is no rule in Biblical language that will account for such a dialect as this. Let any one find a statement in the scriptures that Christ did not die for every man. Let some class of sinners be pointed out to us which the scriptures declare to be unatoned, and unredeemed, or unransomed. Let any abettor of a limited atonement search and try to embody his opinion in some express declaration of scriptures, "sudet multum, frustraque laboret, As this opinion cannot be expressed in scriptural language; as it cannot be pronounced in "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," so likewise it cannot be made to run parallel and to tally with scriptural doctrines. To give an enumeration of the doctrines opposed by this opinion, would be to furnish a catalogue of all the truths of revelation. All the doctrinal truths of the scriptures may be divided into two classes, viz. truths contained in the principles of divine moral government, and truths revealed in the promises of the gospel; and a limited atonement strikes against them all. Let a few examples suffice. By disputing the reality of the moral Governor's wish that all men should be saved, come to the knowledge of his truth and comply with his laws;by denying that all men are bound, on the principles of individual accountableness, to accept of Jesus Christ as their Savior, by pleading that the elect, whose debts are supposed to have been paid, must be saved, as the moral law can never reach them again; and by asserting that a vast number of souls shall be sorely punished for not doing what they had no power to do, and for not accepting what was verily never intended for themthis opinion militates against every truth in the principles of moral government. It clashes equally with all the truths revealed in the gospel. The gospel declares that by the "true" grace of God, Christ tasted death for every man; but by the false grace of this pretended theology, Christ tasted death only for some. The scriptural gospel addresses a message to every creature to believe in Christ, to every man every where to repent, but the invitation addressed by this "other gospel," is cramped, partial, and select. It sometimes, indeed, feigns to take up the terms of a general call into its dialect, but its general call is founded not upon the truth of the fact that Christ is a propitiation for all, but, upon a peradventure that perhaps there may be some among the hearers whom God may call. It impeaches the gospel of insincerity, and gives a character of uncertainty to all its offers. It exhibits the grace of God as ostentatiously giving a free and generous invitation to all men, to come and share in the feast of its provisions, while according to the real truth of the case, it sincerely intends that only a few should partake. Many a trembling sinner, living under the public ministrations of this theology has thought that, perhaps he was meant in the gracious invitation, that possibly, he might venture to hope that Christ would receive him. Now, in the scrip tural doctrine, Christ says, "Whosoever will, let him come," and "him that cometh I will in nowise cast out;" but the business of the abettors of this other doctrine is, to declare that this cheering assurance is not to be received in the latitude and extent expressed. The opinion of a limited atonement is unnecessary either to the support or to the elucidation of any scriptural doctrine. Many, I conceive, have taken up this opinion from an apprehension that it is essentially necessary to the truth of such doctrines as the sovereignty of divine grace, the limited intercession of Christ, and the certainty that the Son of God shall not lose his reward. But this opinion is utterly unnecessary to the maintenance of these doctrines. The doctrine of gracious sovereignty is clearly asserted in the scriptures, and daily acted upon in the affairs of providence, and the government of the world. Take, for instance, the doctrine of predestination to life. This doctrine derives no support from the opinion that Christ died only for the elect. No one example can be given of the holy scriptures expressing any thing like the sentiment that God pre destinated or elected a select number in order that Jesus Christ might die for them, and for them alone. Yet the doctrine of sovereign election is not at all weakened by the absence of such an assertion. It is true that Christ died that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and [in order] to purify unto himself a peculiar people. This expresses only one end, and one result of the atonement. Even this text does not so much as hint that Christ redeemed any because they were a peculiar people. It should also be remembered that the apostle gives this very text as an illustration of the grace that bringeth salvation unto all men. Tit. ii, 14—16. As an instance how easily things are taken for granted, I might mention that thousands have taken the opinion of a limited atonement to be one of the doctrines of Calvinism. But CALVINISM it is not. At least it is not the Calvinism of CALVIN'S Institutes, nor, I believe of CALVIN'S Expositions. I have consulted |