men by faith. With his reasons for so doing we are not at present concerned. It is enough for us to know, that 'it hath pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe.' Now, to this the unrestricted offer of Christ is essential, as otherwise men could have no warrant for faith. The warrant of faith is the testimony of God in the gospel. And, it may be asked, could not this testimony have been made only to those to whom it was his design to give grace to receive it? We answer,—not, without doing away with that mixed state of human existence, which God has appointed for important purposes;not, without making a premature disclosure of who are the objects of his special favour ;-not, without even subverting the very design of salvation by faith. For, on this supposition, the very communicating of the divine testimony to any one would amount to a virtual intimation of his own personal salvation; it would make that salvation as sure as it could possibly be made; and where, in this case, would there be room for that faith which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen? Thus does it appear, that, if God should choose to save some of the human family by faith in the gospel message, it is necessary to this design that the publication of this message be universal. We must

either deny that God has a right to save any by means of faith in the gospel-and who are they that will take upon them thus to limit the Holy One of Israel ?—or admit that an unrestricted gospel offer is perfectly consistent and indispensable.

The objection we are considering militates as directly against the limited application, as against the restricted intention, of Christ's atonement. It is asked, how can God offer to all salvation by Christ, if this salvation has not been purchased for all? We ask, on the same principle, how can God offer to all salvation by Christ, when, even supposing it purchased, it is his intention not to confer it on all? And when our opponents have given a satisfactory reply to the latter question, we shall have no difficulty whatever in replying to the former. A designed limited application, which our opponents admit, affords no broader a basis for the universal offer, than a designed limited pur chase. The difficulty is only, by this means, shifted a step forward, where it presses, not only with all its original

weight, but with that of other encumbrances which it has gathered in its progress.

The ground on which the universality of the gospel offer proceeds, is the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement. It is not said in the gospel, that Christ died with the intention that all should be saved, but that his atonement is a sufficient ground of salvation to all, and that all who rest on this ground by faith shall be saved. This is all that the gospel asserts; and there is nothing here but what is true, and fit to be made known to all. Nor is any thing more requisite to vindicate the universality of the gospel offer from the charge of inconsistency or insincerity. The atonement of Christ, possessing a glorious, infinite, allsufficiency, is with propriety made known and offered to the acceptance of all. There is, in this case, no natural impossibility in the salvation of any man. The secret design of God, by which the application is restricted, has no casual influence in producing unbelief. The obstacles to salvation are all moral, that is to say, are such only as arise from the native rebellion and hardness of man's own heart. A sufficient ground of salvation exists; the appropriate means of salvation are provided; and, of course, a proper foundation is laid for man's accountability, so that, in rejecting salvation by Christ, he is absolutely without excuse. 'He that believeth not shall be condemned.'

Add to these considerations, that the universality of the gospel offer is necessary to glorify God. We are too apt to limit our views, in this matter, to the interests of man. But the gracious character of Deity, and the beauty of the scheme of mercy, are also concerned in it. By the universal offer, means of salvation are provided for all, and God's willingness to save all that come unto him is widely proclaimed. It is thus made known, that he is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' He is revealed as

'God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.' And the sincerity of his own remarkable declaration is seen and vindicated, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?' It is, further, made to appear, that the reason, the sole reason, why men perish in their sins, is not, in any sense, because Christ did not

die for them, but because they would not avail themselves of the merits of his death, by believing the record which God hath given of his Son. The character of God is vindicated from every aspersion, and the blame of eternal misery is seen to rest with the unbelieving themselves. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.'

4. The universal terms used in scripture, in speaking of the subjects of Christ's atonement, constitute the most plausible objection to the view we have adopted.

Before proceeding to consider the particular terms and phrases in question, we crave attention to some general remarks, applicable to the whole, and which, in our opinion, ought of themselves to go far, in the way of removing any difficulty that may be felt on that head.

First then, the difference betwixt the old and new testament dispensations, with regard to extent, is deserving of marked attention. The former was greatly restricted; it was almost exclusively confined to one people; and to this limitation the members of the church had been long accustomed. The new dispensation, was possessed of an opposite character; it was distinguished by a universal extension of its privileges; it threw down the middle wall of partition by which the Jews were kept separate from the other nations of the earth, asserted that there was no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, and opened its arms to Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free. But the previous state of things had given rise to deepseated prejudices in favour of exclusive privilege, which it was no easy matter to uproot. Although the Saviour had manifested a regard for a Roman centurion, and for a woman of Canaan, and had even plainly declared other sheep I have which are not of this fold,' still the exclusive sentiment appears to have retained a firm hold on the minds even of his own disciples. They were Jews, and were manifestly reluctant to descend to a common level with others, in regard to the enjoyment of religious privilege; a miracle was wrought to convince an apostle that God is no respecter of persons, and to carry home to him the lesson, • What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.' Acts xi. 9. If such narrow views were entertained by those who had the best opportunities of correct information, we need not wonder at the bigoted prejudices of others. The

preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles awakened the jealousy of the Jews, and to such a length did they carry their opposition, that they even persecuted the preachers, 'forbidding them to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved,' 1 Thes. ii. 15, 16. Take one specimen :— And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said it was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles: for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.' Acts xiii. 44-47. Considering such a state of things, it is surely not difficult to account for the use of terms of extensive import, in speaking of the blessings of the new economy. To mark the contrast, the strongest language that could be employed became necessary. In these circumstances, we can conceive of nothing more natural than to use the phrases all men, all the world, &c., to denote men in general, without regard to national distinction. Nor let it be surmised that, in giving this explanation, we are supposing language to be employed which is not strictly true or correct. We make no such supposition; we reason on the commonly received principle of verbal interpretation: it is an ordinary occurrence to use a general designation, when it is intended to express a general principle, and not to include each individual comprehended in the general designation employed. Take, as an explanation of what we mean, these words uttered in reference to the conversion of Cornelius :- Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.' What do they express ? Not that to every individual of the Gentile world God had granted repentance unto life; but that the conversion of Cornelius, a Roman soldier, evolved and established the principle that Gentiles as well as Jews were eligible to the enjoyment of saving blessings. In precisely the same way, are we warranted to explain the phrases in question as meaning, not that Christ died for all men without exception, or for every individual in the world, but for all without distinétion of national character. Bearing this in

mind, and remembering that it is the language of a Jew addressed to Jews, the words of John cannot be misunder. stood:-'If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitia tion for our sins, and not for OURS only, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD.' (1 John ii. 1, 2.) The same principle will apply to many similar passages. The difference between all without exception and all without distinction is deserving of particular attention in this controversy. If we do not greatly mistake, it supplies the true solution of the apparent difficulty on which the objection before us is founded. That Christ made atonement for all without distinction is freely conceded; that he made atonement for all without exception cannot be maintained, as we have seen, without involving ourselves in the most palpable contradiction; nor is there any thing, it appears, in the language of scripture, which requires us to adopt such a supposition.

But further, it may even be admitted that there are certain advantages or privileges, not of a saving nature, resulting from the death of Christ, the participation of which, by those who live under the gospel, may be held to be strictly universal. The preservation of the human race itself may be traced up to this source; and certainly we are indebted to it for the means of moral and religious improvement, for much valuable and useful knowledge, for a more full and clear exhibition of duty, for greater restraints on wickedness, and stronger incentives to righteousness, and benevolence, and purity; with many other things, contributing to the prosperity of society and the welfare of individuals, which unassisted reason or civil legislation could never have secured.* The system of grace, established on earth and resting on the atonement of Christ, as its basis, surrounds, so to speak, our guilty world with an atmosphere of natural and moral good, and scatters an endless variety of personal and social enjoyments.' These advantages are strictly universal; and if the sentiment that Christ died for all men, were understood to have no higher reference than these, we might not feel ourselves called upon to dispute it. Still, at the same time, we should be disposed to question the propriety of the language employed to express the sentiment in question

* Hill's Lectures, vol. iii. p. 9.

191