merely as a system; it is possible to better it all around with texts of Scripture; but if its elemental principles be granted, it will be impossible to find a flaw in the the arguments.

Let us advert to one curious circumstance, which shows the struggle of sound faith with false philosophy. The Arminian has often been puzzled with the question, why, seeing you maintain universal atonement and universal grace, do you not also admit universal salvation? And he certainly would have, according to fair reasoning, to have admitted universal salvation, had not his faith hedged him in. He saw in the Scriptures that all men will not be saved; and admitting this among his elemental truths; he had to part with the redemptional universalist. His task became more difficult; but his system became grander, and more complex.

III. ROAD.

1. The offer of everlasting life is made to all men in the gospel.

2. Jesus Christ specifically atoned for the elect; or represented the elect alone in the covenant of grace. 3. But this atonement, or its imputability, depended on his representative character.

4. Now since he specifically died for the elect, and is proclaimed a Saviour to the non-elect, it follows that he must in some sense have died for all men.

What that some sense is we are not told; but it would seem that he did not die for the non-elect in the same sense in which he died for the elect.

This doctrine I have read in a book written by a

I

New England divine, who had the honour of representing his country in the congress of the United States. The same doctrine may be found in the writings and speeches of others; but I cannot name any party or denomination who have made it their badge and shibboleth.

IV. ROAD.

1. The gospel offers righteousness and life to all men, by Jesus Christ.

2. Therefore men indefinitely have a right to accept this atonement.

3. But the imputability of that atonement depends on his representation.

4. Consequently Jesus Christ died not for all mennor for any man in particular, but for men indefinitely. With respect to this system of indefinite atonement, I mean to say only this much, that it has this singular merit, honour, and glory, beyond all the other systems that ever were in this world, that it is built up without the expense of one single idea, good or bad.

Is it any wonder that the human understanding, after finding itself tantalized with a vocabulary of sounds, about an atonement made for those who were not intended to be saved by it-and made in some sense for all men-about an indefinite atonement, made for every man, and for no man-Should turn away with disgust from sounds which neither profit the head nor the heart, nor fit a man for either this life or the next; and give up the atonement altogether. There is no mystery respecting the cause of the increase of Socinianism, it is only ceasing to use a word, that has long lost its meaning.

V. ROAD.

The most frightful idea on the subject of atonement, or any other subject, that ever entered the human heart, was broached some years ago in Edinburgh. It was this: That Jesus Christ did indeed die for all-both elect and non-elect. That he purchased them all from his heavenly Father; the elect, that he might confer upon them eternal life, the non-elect, that he might inflict on them everlasting wrath. That, in consequence of this purchase, he has the privilege of bestowing on the one, the everlasting consolations of heaven; and of inflicting on the other, the superior torments of what they called gospel wrath; in short, that the Son of God laid down his life, as much that he might damn one class of mankind, as that he might save the other. But I have never understood, that a party could be gotten to rally round so black a standard. The heart recoiled from giving both God and the Saviour such a character, that it could not behold them without terror and hatred.

I could name some other systems, corrupted by the same sophism; but as the worst of all surfeits, is a logical surfeit, I forbear. There are, however, some straggling, unsystematized ideas floating in society, which I may just hint at; such as the following :That we offer eternal life to all the hearers of the gospel, because we do not know who are elected. This is a very lank sophism; because since it is God, who knoweth all things, that makes the offer of life to all men, it follows, that either it ought to be complied with, or ought not and if complied with, the salvation of the applicant must be possiblé, nay certain. Again,

we have heard it said, that there is not a promise in the whole word of God, except to believers: which is as much as to say, that a man must believe, before there is any thing for him to believe; or, speaking in the technical phrase, the act of faith must exist before its object; or, talking with mathematicians, I must demonstrate a proposition before there can be any proposition to be demonstrated. But I forbear.

Let us now sum up our acquisitions. We have found, that by assuming the principle that Christ's righteousness is imputable to men, because he represented them in the covenant-and, combining it with truths of unquestionable authority, it nniversally led us astray; it made us, in one set of principles, universalists, in another, Arminians, in another, something else; in a word, there was not an error on the subject, into which it did not lead us; till we were obliged to give up atonement all together: Can this principle then be true? Can that condiment which mixed with every dish of every kind, converts them all into poison, be any thing but poison? Did ever truth in conjunction with truth generate error?

Now this very principle is assumed through the whole of Mr. M'C.'s scheme. Nay, it was the assumption of this principle that laid the necessity for his scheme. It mingles itself with the whole, and leavens the whole; it is the anima mundi of the system, from it all things proceed, and into it all things are finally resolved. I shall verify this by a quotation.

PLEA, p. 28, 29. After proving, by several quotations, that the gospel offers peace, and pardon, and everlasting life, to every creature, he goes on to argue thus:

"Clearly then, if the commission embraces 'every

creature,' and is to be executed in this way, the proffer of the gospel must include all the virtues of the atonement, intercession, and every other official act of our Lord Jesus Christ, which enter into the ground work of salvation. Now let it be inquired how such a proclamation of the gospel of peace can possibly comport with the assumptions laid down in the individualizing scheme? Did our Lord Jesus Christ formally and from the first, include under his representation all those whom it is his pleasure shall be saved? Did he do it in such a way that the virtues of his office, while they must of necessity extend to them formally and legally speaking, cannot by possibility be extended to others, but upon the supposition, that as they were not represented, they must be pardoned without satisfaction, justified without righteousness, and saved without intercession ?—THEN, we say, that the proclamation of the gospel to characters of this description, would not merely amount to a piece of solemn mockery; it would be directly and unequivocally the proclamation of a lie; and the doctrine which authorizes it, is nothing less than blasphemy against Almighty God. What! men officially appointed to offer pardon and righteousness, and eternal life, in God's name, in Christ's stead,' when no pardon has been produced, that the law will permit to be applied to them! When no righteousness has been prepared, that by possibility of application might be made to cover them! When no intercessor could, consistently with his official engagement, undertake for them! And when they are left, to all intents and purposes, in the same relations, and in the same condition in law and in fact, as if no such thing as a Saviour had been appointed for the world! Who dare ascribe to God this worse that Punic faith?