they do not seem to interpret so much as to ridicule this generally received and most true decision of Divines, That Christ died for all men sufficiently, who transfer the term sufficiently from the intention and act of dying to the mere sufficiency or intrinsic value of the death considered in itself; as if the sense were, The death of Christ hath in itself sufficient merit and value to blot out the sins of all men, but Christ was not offered nor died for all; since the evident sense of this saying is, That Christ died for all sufficiently, although what he offered for all sufficiently, he will not apply to all effectually, on account of the intervening obstacle of unbelief.

ARGUMENT 2. In this distinction of the Schoolmen, which our people commonly admit, viz. That Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the predestinated effectually, the words sufficiently and effectually denote that which was common to all men, whether elect or non-elect, in the mode of the oblation, and that which was peculiar to the elect alone. It was common to both, that Christ died or was offered as a sacrifice to God the Father sufficiently for them. But how can this first term sufficiently be referred promiscuously to the elect and the non-elect, if it marks out a mere sufficiency of the thing, excluding the ordination of the same thing to individuals, which arises from the intention and act of offering? Or, what need is there of that other term effectually, to make a distinction in the mode of the oblation, or in the intention of offering, as to the elect and non-elect, if Christ had no intention at all of offering himself up except for the predestinated alone? This twofold distinction is evidently frivolous and vain, where in things distinguished from each other, both parts are not presupposed. It is therefore to be observed, that the holy Fathers, when urging the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ, do not stop at the mere sufficiency of the thing, but at the act, intention, and mode of offering. In this manner Athanasius* always speaks in his treatise

• ATHANASIUS, a celebrated Christian Bishop of the fourth Century. He was a native of Egypt, and a deacon of the Church of Alexandria under

On the incarnation of the Word. I will mention one or two passages; Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like to ours, because we were all exposed to death, gave himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to his Father (p. 42.) Again, (p. 48) After he had given proofs of his Divinity, it now remained that he should offer up a sacrifice for all, delivering the temple of his body to death for all, that he might set all free from original sin, &c. Observe, that the mark of universality is united, not with the intrinsic sufficiency of the thing offered, but with the intention and act of offering, which referred to all men. Thus Augustine (vol. 9. p. 467. Tract. 92 on John), The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins in such a manner, that it can blot out the sin itself for which it was shed. He does not say, that there was a sufficient intrinsical value in the blood which was shed to expiate the sins of all mankind, which is allowed by all who know how to value aright the blood of God, but he urges the manner and act of offering, and in that respect points out its universality. Thus it was shed for the remission of all sins. It is one thing to say that the blood of Christ has of itself and in itself a sufficient value to blot out the sins of all men, and another to affirm that it was actually shed for the remission of all sins, as Augustine says. But why do I mention the holy Fathers? The sacred Scriptures speak of the death of Christ so as to refer its universal efficacy not to the mere dignity of the

Alexander, the Bishop whom he succeeded in the dignity A.D. 326. He acquired the surname of Great on account of his zeal for the orthodox faith, in opposition to all heresies, especially the Arians, from whom he suffered the bitterest persecutions during the whole course of his episcopacy of 46 years. His works, which are numerous, contain a defence of the Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation; of all which the best Edition is that of the Benedictines, 3 Vols. folio, Paris, 1698. The Creed which goes by his name, though supposed not to have proceeded immediately from his pen, contains the best illustration of his sentiments. Before it is hastily rejected by any one, it would be well to peruse with attention the remarks upon it in Shepherd's valuable work-" Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer of the Church of England." It may be remarked of modern sources of information, that Gorton's Biographical Dictionary has an extended Life of Athanasius, well drawn up, and Clarke's “Succession of Sacred Literature" contains a good account of his works.

sacrifice offered, but to the act and intention of the offering. 1 Tim. ii. 6, Who gave himself a ransom for all. The Apostle does not say, This ransom in itself, and in its own intrinsic value, is sufficient for the redemption of all, but in reality was given for a few, not for all; but, he gave himself for all. Therefore, the intention and act of Christ in giving himself includes all mankind, in like manner as that of the Father in sending his Son; God so loved the world, &c. (John iii. 16.) Therefore, the mere sufficiency of the thing cannot so far avail, that Christ should be affirmed to have died sufficiently for all, without an ordained sufficiency to all from the intention and act of his offering.

ARGUMENT 3. Christ is acknowledged to have died sufficiently for all men, in that sense in which it is denied that he died for the fallen angels. This is plain, and admitted by all the orthodox, who often mention this difference between the evil angels and some bad men, at least while they are living in this world. The words of Ambrose on Ps. cxviii. refer to this, The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord (Serm. 8. p. 658), That mystical Sun of righteousness rose for all, came to all, Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if any one does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit. A little afterwards, Perhaps you will say, Why is it not said, that heaven is full of the mercy of the Lord? Because there are spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places, but the common benefit of Divine pardon and the remission of sins does not pertain to them. From which things it appears, That Christ so suffered for the whole human race, that all men have from thence a common right of obtaining pardon through faith, which the demons have not, because he did not in any way die for them. One of our own countrymen, who contends strenuously for limiting the death of Christ, yet willingly grants this, (Ames, apud Grevinch. p. 55) The sufficiency of the death does not refer in the same way to mankind as to devils. He paid a sufficient ransom for all men, if they would only embrace it, but not for devils. This difference in the payment

It was so paid

of this ransom is worthy of observation. to God that it could not redeem devils, even if they might be supposed to believe; because it was not paid for them; but it was so exhibited and given by God, that it might redeem any of the human race, if they would believe; whence could this be, unless it was offered and paid for them? For it could not avail for the deliverance of any persons whatsoever, even if they should believe, unless it were supposed to be given and offered by God for them in a general view of the human race, even when they did not believe. Having, therefore, established this distinction between the sufficiency of the death of Christ as to men and as to devils, namely, that the death of Christ is understood to be sufficient for all men in the same sense as it is rightly denied to be sufficient for the fallen angels, let us pass from this major proposition to the minor. I say, then, if we do not acknowledge any other sufficiency in the death of Christ as to the redemption of all mankind, except that which we have called mere sufficiency, and which has respect to the intrinsic value of the ransom, the ordination of the offering as to individuals being disregarded— there is no distinction made between such persons and the devils themselves as to the right of obtaining pardon and remission by means of this ransom, which was mentioned above by Ambrose, and granted to men universally, but denied to angels. It is clear, because the value of the death of Christ is estimated from the dignity of the sufferer: it therefore had in itself, intrinsically, not only a sufficiency, but an infinite superabundance, even if there should be placed in the other scale the sins, not only of all mankind, but of the fallen angels. There is therefore to be granted, with respect to mankind, not only that mere sufficiency, which depends upon the inherent dignity of the thing of fered, but that ordained sufficiency which arises from the intention and act of Christ referring this his passion to all mankind, and not referring it to the fallen angels. This being granted, Christ is truly said to have died for all men sufficiently with that sufficiency which does not exist with

regard to the apostate angels, and of which it may be truly said, that Christ did not die either effectually or sufficiently for the fallen angels.

OBJECTION. But perhaps some one may meet this argument and assert, That the mere sufficiency of the thing offered, considered in itself, makes out as to men, that Christ may be rightly said to have suffered for all sufficiently; but does not make it out as to devils, because (Ames, Coron. p. 99) that that ransom is not sufficient which is not apt and suitable. But a great part of the aptitude in Christ to take away the sins of mankind consisted in his assuming the likeness of sinful flesh. Since, therefore, he did not take on himself the nature of angels, he was not in a suitable condition, nor was his death sufficient to take away the sins of the evil angels.

REPLY. This argument is unsound in both parts. For that sufficiency, (whatever aptitude and congruity it may have) if it has not also some ordination and act of offering relative to individuals, does not make out that Christ can be said to have suffered altogether for such persons, much less that he can be affirmed to have suffered for them sufficiently. In vain, therefore, is Christ's assumption of human nature brought forward by those who contend that he died for the elect alone, to deduce from thence that he suffered sufficiently or insufficiently for all mankind. The exception is also weak on the other side, because, although there was not that similitude of nature between Christ and angels which there was between Christ and mankind, yet this could not hinder that the ransom paid by Christ, that is, the blood of God, should be in itself, on account of its own value, most sufficient to take away the sins of angels also. For what guilt of any creature can be so great, that the blood-shedding of God could not suffice for its expiation, which is of infinite value from the dignity of the Divine person; and therefore, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of human nature, if God had deigned to grant this right in the death of Christ to angels, it would also be applicable for the redemption of angels. God indeed was willing to have compassion upon the human race, and not