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 sup position 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 succeed 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 than Punic faith? Who that does ascribe it, dare presume to say that "faithfulness shall be the girdle of his reins?"

We are aware that it has often been said, and may be again said with some little plausibility, that this omission to include men within the covenant of peace does not at all affect their duty to believe; and that as they neither will nor can believe, but by the saving operations of the Holy Ghost, this tender of the gospel may serve as an admirable mean to manifest the height of their enmity and the justice of their punishment. God indeed knows that they will not believe, will not embrace his offers; but that prevents not him from making such a tender as will make manifest before all the principles which actuate them, and will therefore abundantly vindicate, while it must assuredly heighten, their final condemnation.

All this is very distinctly understood; nay more, it is heartily subscribed to. It is indeed very good reason why the gospel very consistently may be, and even should be offered to the millions who, it is not expected nor intended, shall embrace it. But does it do away any portion of the difficulty before us? Is it not a complete and shameless sophism when urged as an answer to the objection of falsehood, in a universal tender upon an individual scheme? That is the point upon which our contrast hinges.-The gospel says, and its authorized ministers are commissioned to declare, "to every creature," that there is a way of life; that it is opened for themselves; that Christ bears a commission which will enable him to save, and that he therefore stands ready and willing to save, without exception and without restriction, all them that come unto God by him. This salvation is officially and formally

tendered to every creature, then, whether they shall be finally saved or lost; and whether saved or lost, they have identically the same assurance given them in the offer that every thing transacted by our Lord Jesus Christ in the character of Saviour, may be lawfully and unhesitatingly appropriated by themselves.-Though then men's inability and indisposition to apply to the Redeemer might be supposed to prevail to the concealment of the fallacy, not to say the falsehood, of such offers, on the individualizing scheme; would it alter the nature of the things themselves? Would it not still be fact, that Christ in no sense bore the commission of their Saviour, that pardon could not possibly be extended to them, that no righteousness had been wrought out which could cover their deformities? And would not every one of these facts be directly in the teeth of the gospel promulgation, when fully understood and rightly executed? Is not the offering pardon where none has been procured, the offering righteousness where none has been provided, the offering eternal life where none can be communicated, any more than if no plan of salvation had been instituted, are not all these things, upon the supposition we are combating, as contrary to fact as any statement or proffer can be? And will the mere assumption that because none uncomprehended in the covenant can comply with the terms, the truth of the declaration never can be tested, or rather its falsity never can be exposed-will this mean and meagre and miserable assumption convert into truth declarations which are not true, or shield the pure and splendid throne of God from the imputation of a subterfuge so shallow that imbecility itself might blush to father it? O shame! O shame!"Let God be true, and every man a liar." Let this contradiction, let the imputation of this folly, rest upon the head of the weak and fond systematizer who, rather than let fall some darling hard-wrought scheme, will make the Living and the Holy God stand sponsor for the follies of his lackbrained labours, and silence by the thunders of sovereignty and omnipotence all familiar exposition of the defects it may present. Gentle reader, this quarrel is not God's. "He is the rock, his work is perfect, all his ways are judgment." And believing, as you do, the declaration of the scripture, that to every creature without exception and without limitation, all the blessings of this salvation are to be proffered, you are not also bound to embrace that individualizing scheme which stamps with every mark of the most unqualified falsehood the blissful declaration, and immolates upon the altars of hunan infallibility, the truth and honour of Almighty God. The Saviour himself has given the commandment that the gospel of his grace should be thus illimitably proclaimed: he has stamped the commission of his messengers with the seal of faithfulness: and every scheme which would set limits to the efficacy of his official deeds, short of those limits which his gospel has marked out, every scheme which would circumscribe a power which he proffers to exert on every individual to the earth's utmost end, must be branded as an arrogant and blasphemous im

putation, not less inimical to the dearest hopes of men than dishonourable to the integrity of the God of truth.

In fact, even upon the most limited scale imaginable, even upon that scheme for which individualizers themselves contend, the gospel of Jesus Christ never could be preached, if their views are to be admitted as correct. Let it be repeated, that to preach the gospel is not merely to give a sound exposition of Christian truth; it is as Christ's ambassadors to tender to them who are the objects of the proffer, the redemption he brings near. Now, evidently, in order to do this with perfect truth, upon the scheme which we are combating, the subjects comprehended within the Saviour's commission must be distinctly and individually known. To them you may; nay, if you really preach the gospel, to them you must proffer it, because for them it is prepared. But yet not to all that are included in the covenant, but to the unregenerate alone. Because, properly speaking, it is to sinners, not to saints, that the message of the Saviour, rigidly denominated, is brought nigh. Pardon to them who need it, not to them who have it; life to them who are dead, not to them who are already made alive; peace to them who are at enmity with God; citizenship to such as are in an alien state; but none of these things, formally and properly, to such as already have them. They may be nurtured, they may be protected, they may be increased, their salvation may be perfected; but they cannot properly be the objects of a message framed for sinners considered merely as such, for they already have much of that which it is proffered to bestow. -But how is your unconverted elect man, to be distinguished by your preacher from any other man? That is, how, upon the supposition we are endeavouring to beat down, is the messenger to execute the commission entrusted with him? The alternative must be this: a gospel which can be specifically and unerringly applied, or no gospel at all: a preacher who is infallible, a preacher who is omniscient, or no preacher at all. A most miserable alternative for short sighted humanity!

Take now the other supposition. Suppose that the federal system, headed by the Redeemer, is constituted like every other one bearing the same name. When we see that it recognizes nothing save that which is already within its limits, but at the same time can admit illimitably and interminably into its capacious bosom; we feel that we survey a structure to whose operations sovereignty may prescribe whatever limits it sees fit, while with perfect consistency and undissembled truth it tenders the blessing without any kind of limits to all who wear the nature to which the plan refers. Such however is the enmity, such is the blindness of the carnal mind, that none to whom it is tendered, following the bent of their corrupt nature, ever would embrace it. But with respect to the election of grace, the Spirit of the Son comes in aid of the general offer; and while that offer authorizes, the gracious influence of God's gracious Spirit "persuades and

enables" the subject of mercy to lay hold upon the hope set be fore him. Thus does it happen according to that which is written in the scriptures, "the election hath obtained it, and the rest are blinded." Meanwhile, no imputation lies against the truth or sincerity of him who offers; and no palliation can be plead by those who despise the overture of mercy. He who believes, embraces the sinner's hope upon that "general warrantry of heaven," which would equally authorize every other human being, and without which no human being whatever would have any foundation to believe unto righteousness.""

You see the design of the paragraph. It is to confirm my idea of the federal constitution, viz: that Christ and his people are identified in law from the moment of their union: that the Saviour's merits cover none but those who are actually thus united, not even the residue of his elect: and that his body, thus constituted, is capable like every other federal body, of indefinite augmentation. This I attempt to prove in opposition to the notion that all his elect, whether united to him or not, are represented by him in virtue of the covenant; and were in fact so represented from the first moment of its existence, if moments may be predicated of an eternal compact. I maintain it against this, and against a second and consecutive principle, viz. that the Saviour stood sponsor for his elect by name, and suffered for their individual sins formally and specifically; that this specific reference was essential to the efficacy of his deeds; and that as the non-elect were not represented, contracted, or atoned for, there is of course no ground on which they could be saved, unless it might be done without representation or atonement.-I beg that the Synod would be at pains to understand me. I do not say that the Saviour represented, contracted or atoned for other than his people. On the contrary (I repeat the language of my book,) " he obeyed for his body, for it he suffered, and it he represents." But the Presbytery hold that he formally contracted for every individual of his elect when the covenant was made; that he stood from that moment the covenant head of all these; and that all their sins were formally laid upon him, and individually satisfied for by him when he hung upon the tree. From this they infer and maintain, that his death cannot have in itself any efficacy that might reach others; because his bearing their individual sins, and representing their individual persons, is held to be indispensable to an efficacious

oblation. Of course, you see, as the non-elect never have been represented by Christ, as their names never were in the bond which he is said to have canceled, the atonement can have no more reference to them than to fallen angels; and so there is no more hope for them than for fallen angels; nor can there be for them a possibility of salvation more than for fallen angels, unless the Saviour should again assume the form of a servant, represent their persons, and atone for their sins. This is the principle now maintained pretty generally by those who are called Calvinists; I shall hereafter show you that it is held forth in some of your standard writers; and the libel will prove that it is the undoubted view of the Presbytery of Kentucky. Now it is to this view that I oppose my development of the structure of the covenant of grace, and of the federal body compacted by it.-Among the arguments by which it is attempted to put down this view, is the one just read, and which is drawn from the universality of the gospel offer. I say that Christ has authority to save all men, that he offers to save all men, that it is the duty of every man to receive him as his own Saviour in particular. By consequence, I argue, if he offers to save all, he offers to do every thing essential to salvation, i. e. offers pardon in his blood, offers righteousness in his obedience, offers acceptance with God through his own intercession. And my conclusion is, that if he is authorized of God to do these things, if he offers to all men to do these things; he is abundantly able to accomplish them. But if the system avowed by my prosecutors be correct, he is not able to do any of these things for any reprobate man. Not able; because, say they, it is essential to salvation to have been named in the covenant, and to have been represented on the cross; and we on all hands agree that the reprobate never was so named, never so represented. Does it not then follow, if these things be really essential, in the manner and form asserted by the Presbytery-does it not follow, in the terms of the essay, that if any such were saved, God must "pardon them without satisfaction, justify them without righteousness, and save them without intercession?" Sir, there were no less than two members of Presbytery who avowed this on the trial. They acknowledge that he offers to save all men, and at the same time deny that he is able to do it. Sir, do you not see that the paragraph under con

E