will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU : depart from me ye that work iniquity."* Here a broad line of distinction is drawn between two classes of the human family, with respect to one of which the Saviour makes the appalling affirmation, I never knew you.' The import of the words, according to scripture usage, it is by no means difficult to ascertain. The doctrine of the Saviour's omniscience precludes the idea that simple knowledge is all that is designed. The antagonist assertions, You only have I known of all the families of the earth,' and 'The Lord knoweth them that are his,'t leave us no room to hesitate. The reference can only be to a special saving cognizance, of which some are the objects, and others: not. But with what shadow of plausibility can such knowledge be denied, with regard to any for whom Jesus suffered, whose sins he actually bore in his own body on the tree? Are there any such whom he never knew?

Take another testimony from the same evangelist: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.' It is here affirmed, as plainly as language can do it, that there are some of mankind from whom the saving benefits of Christ's kingdom are 'hid.' Now, we are not concerned what interpretation is put upon this phrase. That it imports some awful privation in the matter of the soul's

* Matt. vii. 21—23. † Amos iii. 2; 2 Tim, ii, 19. Matt. xi. 25.

eternal interests, cannot be denied. What we have to do with is this, whether Christ's being said to have hid these things from the wise and prudent, can be made to comport or agree with his having procured these very things for the same individuals by his death. Can it be honouring to the only wise God, our Saviour,' to suppose in his conduct so glaring a contradiction, as that of first purchasing, at the expense of his own precious blood, saving benefits for men, and then deliberately hiding these purchased benefits from those for whom they were thus expensively provided? Take what view you will of the hiding from the wise and prudent, it will be found to be incompatible with the persons in question ever having been interested in the atonement of Christ.

In the following passages, the distinction made between the sheep and the goats or the wolves, for the former of whom only Christ is said to lay down his life, ought to be carefully marked and duly weighed :-'I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for THE SHEEP. lay down my life for THE SHEEP.

I

But ye believe not, because ye are not of MY SHEEP, as I said unto you. MY SHEEP hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand."* Besides the restriction of Christ's laying down his life,that is, his atonement,-to the sheep, the identity of those for whom he laid down his life and those

* John . 11, 15, 26, 27, 28.

to whom is given eternal life so that they shall never perish, is deserving of particular notice.

The singularly decided passage in our Lord's intercessory prayer has already been commented on, and here requires only to be noted :—' I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am.'*

me.

Paul says, 'But God commended his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.' We know not how it could be more clearly taught that those for whom Christ died are justified by his blood and delivered from the wrath to come; but this cannot be affirmed of all. To the same purpose this apostle gives utterance to the challenge, 'Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died.' The death of Christ is thus supposed to be the best possible security against condemnation : none for whom Christ died can ever be exposed to the curse; but there are some on whom the curse will press for ever: of course it cannot be said that for such Christ died.

The next text we adduce is this:-'For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' It will be allowed, that by Christ be* John xvii. 9, 19, 2 † Rom. v. 8, 9. 2 Cor. v. 21.

ing made sin, is meant his suffering for our atonement. But the object of his being made sin is, that those for whom he is so made, might be made the righteousness of God in him. These are of the same extent, as regards the persons interested in them. They are, in fact, the very same persons for whom he was made sin, and who are, in consequence, made the righteousness of God in him. Now, that all are not made the righteousness of God in Christ need not to be proved; and we have only to draw the inference, that for all he has not been made sin.

Two other kindred passages may close this department of proof :- Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." Two points, in favour of our position, are furnished by this text :-in the first place, it is the church, and not the world, for which Christ gave himself; and, in the second place, the love of Christ, by which he was actuated in so doing, is peculiar and exclusive towards the church, as that of husbands is required to be toward their wives. The latter consideration completely sets aside the discreditable shift by which some have endeavoured to get rid of this passage, namely, by alleging that Christ's giving himself for the church does not imply that he gave himself for no others. On this principle, we should be obliged to admit that Christ's loving the church does not imply that he loved none else; and, then, what becomes of the passage as setting forth an example or pattern for

* Eph. v. 25.

the imitation of husbands? Analogous to this text is that of the same apostle, in his epistle to Titus:-'Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."* This requires no comment. Those for whom Christ gave himself are a peculiar people, and not the whole race of mankind indiscriminately.

III. Opposed to these arguments are certain OBJECTIONS to the doctrine of a definite atonement, which, it is proper, we should weigh with candour, and against which it becomes us to vindicate the position we have taken up.

1. It is objected that the restriction for which we contend is derogatory to the honour and the merits of Christ.

To this we reply, that it belongs not to man to determine the share of honour due to the Saviour. This is the prerogative of God. And, supposing it admitted-which it is not-that less honour would redound to Christ from his atonement being definite, if the honour of making a definite atonement is all that God designed he should have, or all which he himself claims or expects, what right have men to interfere and say it is not sufficient? On the principle on which this objection rests, might it be contended that Christ made atonement for fallen angels as well as for men, because, forsooth, it may be supposed to be more honouring to Christ to hold such a sentiment than the other. The thing with which we have to do is, not which of two suppositions reflects the greatest degree of

*Tit. ii. 14.