fore, notwithstanding of all that have already subscribed in that name, since Eve first set down her name there, by believing the promise first, whereby she then commenced and actually was the mother of all living; yet the voice of the gospel still is, and will be even to the end; " And yet there is room." Ibid. Title iii.

I cannot quote this passage without stopping to remark how similar it is in sentiment and language and structure, to a passage in the essay branded as erroneous in the libel before you.

pro

"Full well we know indeed, that the mere invitation will not bring them there; but that argues nothing against the priety of inviting them, when there actually is no impediment in the way of their being made partakers of the blessing, except that which arises entirely from themselves; from their blindness, their enmity, their unbelief. 'Compel them to come in,'' yet there is room,' may very consistently be the commandment of the Saviour to his messengers, and his assurance to the world at large, to the very end of time. For the consummation of his plan in embracing the last person whom it is his intention to receive, will be so far from diminishing the capacities of his system to receive more, or the resources of his merits to cover more, that the command might even then be fresh and green as ever,' compel them to come in: faithfulness might still declare it as faithfully as ever, ' yet there is room," &c. Body of Christ. Page 200-201.

Compare these passages. The very same in doctrine, the same in illustration, the same in the quotation; and in the current of the thought so very much alike, that the one might be readily supposed to have been borrowed from the other; though indeed I never read the extract, till years had elapsed from the publication of the essay. But do you not wonder, sir, at the coincidence of thought? Do you not wonder at the diversity of their fate? How unlike in the reception they have met with from your Presbytery! How similar in their fate to Pharaohs famous officers, the butler and the baker. "Me," says the butler "he restored unto mine office; and him he hanged." Alas! that I should have to reverse the report to you! Boston they eulogize as most worthy of his office; but me their libel hanged.

But I quoted the paragraph for a more important purpose than to strike up this mournful ditty. It would appear that the covenant is so constructed, and contains such provisions, that to "any sinner of the race of Adam,—his receiving and embracing

the covenant shall be as good and valid to enter him into it, as if he had personally subscribed it at the making thereof." Why then surely it is not essential to salvation to have had our names enrolled in it from the first; for the covenant itself" provides," for us otherwise. Again; if" it is left open to mankind-sinners, that they may come into it," it is a great mistake to say that the covenant restricts redemption to the elect of God; for it " provides" otherwise. Once more: if "there is room enough within the compass of the infinite name of the second Adam, for all of us to subscribe our little names;" and if this be "the constitution thereof" under which "it is provided" that the elect shall be saved; then it is a grievous error to assert" "that all the elect of God, or all those who shall be saved, were individually recognized as included under Christ's federal representation at the time when his obedience was yielded and his atonement made." How could they be" individually recognized as included under Christ's federal representation," and yet their names not in the covenant? and yet they themselves not " personally entered?" and yet they, nevertheless, not be "reputed righteous?"

And now, sir, let me sum up the whole of these authorities, and then let us learn your inference from them.

If Jesus Christ" is empowered by commission from his Father to administrate the covenant to any of all mankind, the sinners of the family of Adam, without exception;" and " to confer on them all the benefits thereof to their eternal salvation:"-if "the extent of the administration is not founded on election, but on the sufficiency of Christ's obedience and death for all:"-if on this ground he is able to save the world," and actually makes the tender of salvation" to every creature:"-if the covenant" is left open to mankind sinners that they may come into it," and if Christ "is authorized to receive them into it:"--if Christ " is dead for every man:”—if every man may claim him as his own personal Saviour, and will be condemned for unbelief, if he refuses to believe that he actually is his Saviour:—and if all these things flow directly from the structure of the covenant of grace, and from the constitution of the "body of Christ:" then surely-is it not your inference? sir, or must I still stand alone? Do you adopt it?

or must I alone avow it?-then surely that scheme of individual representation, individual transfer, so often named in this discussion, cannot be the plan of God. CANNOT be his plan; for Jesus Christ" is dead" as the ordinance of salvation for multitudes whose names were never entered, whose sins he never bore:CANNOT be his plan; for God has authorized him to save innumerable multitudes whose names are no where recognized, whose sins he never bore:-CANNOT be his plan; for Jesus Christ has told us he is able to save these multitudes, whose names the covenant knows not, whose sins he never bore:-CANNOT be his plan; for Christ wears the name of Saviour, their own official Saviour, to myriads whose names have been never breathed in heaven, and whose sins he never bore.

And is it essential to the salvation of any who are elect, that they should have been one in covenant with the Saviour from eternity; and recognized as with him when he hung upon the cross? Were their sins in particular imputed to him then, and was such an imputation essential to their pardon? Then how much less is necessary to the salvation of the reprobate than of the elect world! For Christ it seems is "able" to save them every one; and yet none of these things are predicated of them: Christ, you know, offers to save them every one; and yet none of these things can be predicated of them. How lax, in this instance, would you make eternal justice! for Christ it seems is "authorized" to save them every one; and yet, nothing of all these things can be predicated of them!! Sir, "there is something rotten in the state" of your theology; and it would well become your wisdom to inquire it out.

But before I leave entirely this host of authorities, which might readily be extended an hundred fold, I must beg leave, once for all, solemnly to protest against the use of such weapons in a controversy like the present. Well and safely does your confession teach you that the scriptures alone, in their original tongues, are the source of legitimate appeal. All human beings, all general councils, " may err and have erred;" and neither Thomas Boston, nor the Westminster assembly, nor an angel from heaven, are to be implicitly relied on, when a controversy

is stirred relative to the grounds of a sinner's hope. Of this the very man of whose writings we have made so much use, affords many a lively and pitiable warning. While discussing systematically the structure of the covenant, he tells us, as usual, of the Saviour's assuming the debts of all his elect, and accounting formally for their individual persons. He illustrates his view, by a person's discharging a bond in the room of an original debtor: and he infers, that as the payment of that bond cannot release a second debtor, whose name is not in it; so cannot the Saviour's atonement be made to reach any whose names are not in the covenant; that is, any but the elect; for certainly the names of none other were ever there. Yet this is the man who asserts the Saviour's commission to save all men, his ability to save all men, and the constitution of the covenant as being so modified as to admit of the salvation of all. Is he not then authorized to save without atonement? Has he not ability to save without atonement? Does he not make the offer of salvation without atonement? All this must follow, if both these views be true. But, sir, they are principles that never can amalgamate. It is in vain you speak of the sufficiency of the atonement; and in vain you talk about the amount of satisfaction being more than enough to cover all human guilt. If that satisfaction cannot be attributed to any whose names were not originally in the bond, Boston correctly decides that no construction can ever make it theirs. If the Saviour suffered specifically for the sins of all his elect; if he did it in legal form, in their name and stead; then the law will no more permit the application of it to others of the human family, than to the angels who kept not their first estate. It is neither in fact nor in form "the common salvation;" nor is Jesus of Nazareth “the Saviour of the world." Yet Boston, and Owen, and hundreds of others, have talked and written incessantly in this style. It is a contradiction inseparable from the individualizing scheme; unless we desert entirely the gospel of grace, and deny that salvation is provided for the nations. And probably it is well, even very well, that these discrepancies and contradictions are so often to be met with in the writings of those fathers who have aided so considerably the cause of saving truth, and obtained for themselves a wide and just renown. It is thus God stains the pride of all human

H

glory: thus he will compel us to❝ call no man master;" by permitting these blemishes in the works of his best servants: and thus he binds down our reliance for true wisdom on "the teacher come from God;" by showing us that "the lion of the tribe of Judah" alone can prevail to open all the seals.

Sir, do you not discern a necessity for this resort, when such flagrant contradictions stare you in the face? To the scriptures let us go then: let us there seek the ground on which the covenant and atonement are restricted to God's people, yet capable of extension to all the sons of Adam.

Those scriptures which are employed to sustain the common view of "the covenant of redemption," that "different aspect" of the covenant of grace, as it is very unwisely and improperly called, are the very ones to which I would appeal. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations." Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4. Now who is this" chosen," with whom the covenant was made? With all the elect you will tell me; for elect means chosen. Sir, will you have the goodness to look down upon the 19th verse. "Thou spakest in vision to thy Holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people." What, sir! was this "one" who is said to be exalted, all elect individuals? Were the "eiect" the mighty one, on whom our help was laid? If not, then the covenant was not made with the elect, no not with the elect as viewed in Christ their head. It was made with "one that is mighty," with one who could be "a help." But where abides the might of the elect in the Saviour? To whom can they be helpers? The covenant of grace then was not made with them. Hearken to another of those formidable texts, so often boastingly brought forward in this controversy. "Behold my servant whom I uphold; mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." Isaiah xlii. 1. Here again the term elect occurs; and to that word we are pointed, in proof that all the elect were included in the covenant; that it was in fact made with them. Now, says the prophecy, the party elect "shall bring forth judg ment to the Gentiles." At what time, I pray you, did sinful men