ence, in regard to their respective views of the nature of the atonement, is great, as will hereafter appear.

On the extent of the atonement, I have insisted so largely, because, as you know, our opponents attempt to disparage our doctrine, by representing their views as more liberal than ours; but it has, I trust, been shown, that the atonement they advocate, though called universal, is not more. extensive in fact, than the atonement we advocate; and that their doctrine on the subject has no advantage whatever in this respect, over that which we maintain.

Yours, affectionately.

LETTER II.

Offer of Salvation in preaching the Gospel.

MY DEAR BROther,

At the close of the preceding letter it was admitted that between the definite and the general atonement, the difference is verbal rather than real. I am therefore unwilling to represent three theories on the subject, as prevailing in the Presbyterian church. But as the word general seems to correspond with the term indefinite, better than it does with the term definite; and consequently intimates that the advocates of a general atonement harmonize more in their views with the friends of an indefinite, than with those of a definite, atonement; it may be proper to state, that this is by no means the fact. By turning to the description given of the opinions of the new school on this all-important doctrine of divine revelation,

it will be seen that it does not at all suit the views of those who have been known, in the Presbyterian church, as the advocates. of what is termed a general atonement. For they believe, as well as we, that Christ was the substitute of his people-that he was charged with their sins-that he bore the penalty of the law-that he made satisfaction to the justice of God for all who shall believe-In fact they differ from us only in relation to the terms they prefer, in speaking on the extent of the atonement. While they maintain that Christ died especially for the elect, they believe that, in a certain sense he died for others. With them, let it be repeated, we wish to have no dispute. We think alike, although we make choice of different words, in communicating our thoughts in regard to a particular point. The comparison I am drawing, is not between our views of the atonement and theirs; but between ours and those which are entertained on this great subject, by persons whose sentiments were stated in my first letter, and who are usually known by the

name of Hopkinsians. And should these letters ever meet the public eye, I wish the friends of a general atonement to see, that I am not contending with them, but opposing certain views of a most important doctrine, which they, as well as we, believe to be unscriptural and dangerous.

in

You will not, my dear friend, understand what I have said in relation to the heathen, my first letter, as representing the salvation of all who are destitute of the light of the gospel, as being impossible. I have only said, that if the atonement had been made for all mankind, the knowledge of it would have been sent to all nations; and that, as an inspired writer has expressly represented the heathen as being "without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having NO HOPE and WITHOUT GOD in the world," it is altogether improper to say, a door of hope has been opened for all men -for the heathen, who are destitute of divine revelation, just as much as for Christians, to whom the gospel is preached. Still I believe, that, as infants, who are inca

pable of hearing and believing the gospel, are saved, not as being free from guilt and depravity, but through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ; so some of the heathen may be saved, by the application of the same precious blood. How they are brought to participate in the salvation of Christ, I do not know. Jehovah may, if he please, reveal to some, at any time he chooses, so much of the gospel as may be sufficient for the exercise of faith. But in whatever way the application of the atonement may be made, it is altogether extraordinary. Of the means of grace, the heathen are manifestly destitute: they have no Bible, no Sabbath, no gospel, no ministry of reconciliation; they are ignorant of God and Christ, of the way of peace and salvation.

In my former letter, the two theories in regard to the atonement, that prevail in our church, were compared, in regard to the extent of the atonement. It was, I trust, fairly shown, that the new has no advantage over the old scheme in this point; that the greater extent which is attributed to inde