liberality; and thus they not only stand in the same relation to Christ, but are members one of another;-checking each other's extremes, and supplying each other's defects, and sharing each other's advantages; and so by mutuality to produce a comparative perfection in the whole.

Fifthly. In consequence of this, I could never regard the differences of the truly godly as essential; and though I have had my convictions and preferences, they were never anathematizing or exclusive. And I could have communed with any of their churches, and should not have been sorry if circumstances had enabled me to say I had done so.-Jay's Autobiography.

THE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL.

On this subject the mistakes which are often made by parties who profess to act as ambassadors of God are of so serious a character and lead to consequences so momentous, that a few observations may not be out of place in the pages of the Presbyterian Magazine.

It is customary to hear persons who, from their examination of God's word, are led to believe that the object of Christ in giving himself as a sacrifice was to save the Church, and that the atonement of Christ, according to the purpose of God was made to secure this end, acknowledge that they have to encounter a great difficulty in making a universal offer of the Gospel. They are per suaded that a universal offer should be made to sinners; but how to do this, on their schemes of an atonement, limited in its objects, seems a mystery. Some imagine, that the difficulty is removed. by falling back on the fact that, while the atonement is limited in the divine intention to the salvation of the elect only, yet, as it is infinite in value, and as they know not who shall be saved, it is lawful to point all men to this work of Christ, and command them, because of their danger and the value of Christ redemption work, to believe on him. We apprehend, however, that those who adopt this expedient, very generally feel that, in their own mind, they are not satisfied with their system, which seems to be destitute of symmetry and coherency.

Another class feel, that unless they can approach sinners, and assure them that Christ died for them, they have no warrant or authority to enjoin them to believe in him, or to flee to him for eternal life. In other words, unless they are aware of the secret purpose of God in relation to individuals, they have no authority to approach men, and hold out to them any prospect of pardon or mercy. Such preachers of the Gospel would lay down as a warrant for faith, the knowledge of the fact, that to each individual ad

dressed by the Gospel, God had entertained a purpose of mercy, and accordingly, in the work of atonement, there must have been an aspect, in which the Saviour contemplated the salvation of all men. Although such reasoners read that Christ laid down his life for his sheep; "that he loved the Church, and gave himself for it," yet they prefer rejecting the obvious meaning of such clear declarations; because they are elsewhere taught, that the servants of Christ are to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. If, then, they comply with this injunction, and go forth among perishing sinners throughout all the nations of the earth, what good news-what Gospel can they carry with them, unless they can say to every man that Christ died for him, and that, therefore, he may believe and be saved?

It is true, that some thoughtful persons among this class have so much clearness of conception and logical acuteness, as to see, that if Christ died for all men, and really made an atonement in their stead, consisting of obedience and suffering, it would seem to follow, that the salvation of all men is a necessary consequence, if God be a God of absolute justice; seeing that it would be inconsistent with equity, to constrain a Saviour to exhaust the penalty due by all mankind for a broken law, and again to consign a number of these sinners, for whose disobedience a plenary atonement had been made, to the suffering of the lost in hell; thus exacting a double penalty for the violation of the law. It is true, that some shallow minds, just capable of feeling this difficulty, but either unable or afraid to meet it, satisfy themselves that they escape all charge of inconsistency or absurdity, when they affirm, that though Christ died to save all men, yet all men are not saved, because all men do not believe. But the fault and the difficulty do not lie with Christ, or with our merciful Father in heaven, but with hard-hearted, unbelieving sinners, who reject him, notwithstanding all that he has done for their souls. Others have the perspicuity to see, that this is really no answer to the objection which lies at their door; for if Christ died to save all mankind from their sins, then the unbelief of men is their sin; and if all men were to die in unbelief, as their sins are all atoned for, then all men, although dying as unbelievers, would necessarily be saved. Such a conclusion is felt to be monstrous, and to involve conse quences so horrible, that another solution of this embarrassment is adopted by this class, as a satisfactory expedient.

It is contended, that in the work of atonement, the Lord Jesus Christ did not contemplate or secure the salvation of any of the children of men. That his death was not a vicarious substitutionary work, of such a character as to secure, in the way of justice and certainty, the ultimate salvation of any number of sinners, in whose law place-to use the language of the older divines-he stood. According to this theory, which represents the atonement of Christ to be a work of such a character that souls are not necessarily

saved thereby, there was nothing more contemplated by God, the Father, or by Christ, the Mediator, in the transactions of Calvary, than a public spectacle, in which there should be presented a demonstration of the great evil which God recognizes in sin; and that, before mercy could safely be extended to transgressors, it was needful, that by the suffering of a personage so exalted as the Messiah, the hatred of Jehovah to sin should be declared and a sufficient guarantee provided for perpetuating the interests of morality in the government of the universe.*

It is easy to see, that a system of salvation so general and indistinct in its character, as that which we have just stated, is capable of almost indefinite modification. Containing no idea of sacrifice, and no provision for bearing the penalty of the law, as inflicted by an offended lawgiver, it leaves every one to decide for himself, whether an angel or archangel, or a being superior to the angelic race, yet inferior to the Father, may not be able to accomplish all that the system demands. One man may retain the idea, that this transaction was really accomplished by the eternal Son of God. Another, seeing no need for the interposition of such a personage, and being persuaded that an angelic nature, dwelling in humanity, might accomplish all that the requirements of this system demands, adopts the creed of the high Arian; another, whose views of the divine government are less elevated, will be contented with the lower forms of Arianism; while some may boldly carry out the principle, and settle down in the chilly regions of mere humanitarianism.† In fact, there is no stopping-place at which a reasoning mind can rest, when once the idea of a vicarious atonement, strictly substitutionary in its character, is surrendered, until it reaches the frozen territory of Socinianism: just as on the other hand, an atonement, involving the elements of obedience and substitutionary suffering, if rendered for all mankind, must land the believer of such a creed in Universalism.

It is not affirmed, that all who have descended on this sliding

The principle stated above is modified indefinitely by different minds, as may be seen in the writings of our New School brethren; by the modern Congregationalists of New England, and by all those who in England follow the views of Dr. Jenkyn in denying that Christ bore the penalty of a holy, violated law, and that in suffering he occupied the place of the sinner's substitute.

The controversy respecting the nature of the atonement turns on the fact whether or not God is bound to inflict punishment for sin, because of his nature, or from circumstances of an extraneous character. Does his holy and just nature lead him to show his abhorrence of sin, or does he merely for reasons of state and government show by a public display of one who bears pain and suffering, that he is opposed to sin in the administration of the world?

See "Old and New Theology, pp. 118, 119, by Dr. Wood," Board of Publication, 265 Chestnut Street.

"According to this theory, sin goes unpunished, and dreadful sufferings are inflicted on the innocent, to whom no sin is imputed. This scheme as really subverts the true doctrine of atonement, as that of Socinus; and no reason appears why it was necessary that the person making this exhibition should be a divine person.”—Dr. Archibald Alexander, vid. “Treatise on Justification."

scale, from a belief in the higher views of the atonement to the rejection of that doctrine, and the adoption of the lower forms of Arminianism or Arianism, have been influenced only by the fact, that they felt a discrepancy between their theory of a limited atonement, and the statements which they felt called on to use, when they made what they believed to be a universal offer of the Gospel. In many cases, different influences have conspired to produce the result; but it is beyond all controversy true, that the confusion and mystery which envelope many minds on the subject of making a free offer of the Gospel to all men, have largely acted as a force to drive such cloudy thinkers into the adoption of theological views, which at one time they would have dreaded to maintain. In fact, we have, even in our own day, satisfactory but melancholy evidence to show us, that views of the most fantastic and yet dangerous character are promulgated on the atonement, simply because their propounders desire to harmonize what they believe to be a general offer of the Gospel, with the idea that Christ died to reconcile men to God, and save sinners from their sins, while yet in the end all men shall not be saved.

Passing on to the subject in question, we ask, is the preacher of the Gospel at liberty to make the extent of the atonement a warrant for faith? Provided we are assured that Christ died for sinners, and that whosoever believeth in him shall be saved, is any sinner to whom this message comes, at liberty still to hesitate, and to excuse himself on the ground that there is a difficulty yet to be removed; and that until the secret purpose of God concerning him is made known, until he ascertains whether Christ actually died in his room and stead, and thus removed all danger out of his way, he has no ground or encouragement for believing. In other words, provided men are assured of the fact of a completed atonement, and of the fact that all who believe in the Lord, and trust in him for eternal life, shall not come into condemnation, provided these things are affirmed on the truthfulness and faithfulness of God, who knoweth all things, and who cannot deceive, are men guiltless who still hesitate, and ask for any additional ground and warrant for faith? One doubting objector may say: "True, Christ has. died, and made an atonement, but yet all shall not be saved. Now if Christ really died for me, did I know this fact, then I would hopefully and confidingly believe." Another, in the same spirit, may urge, that as the death of Christ is connected with the electing purpose of God the Father, all whose purposes shall stand, his cause of doubt arises from the fact, that he does not know whether or not his name is in the everlasting covenant, in the Lamb's book of life, and among the number given to Christ, for whom he was to die. Did he know the extent and particularity of election, he would then believe. Now all such anti-believing objectors, although they are not aware of the fact, even while they are rejecting the only warrant or authority for any sinner exercis

ing saving faith which God has given, are still demanding an authority to enable them to believe, of the very same kind as that which they reject, and which even did they possess, it would not bring them into the condition of the saved. The sinner, who is told of his sin and danger, and then of the fact of Christ's atonement, and further, that all who believe in him are saved, in receiving and believing accordingly, rests in the truthfulness and faithfulness of God; or rather, he believes and confides in Christ as offered, because he does not doubt the veracity and faithfulness of Him who makes the offer, and who cannot lie. In the case of objectors, who wish to get beyond the region of the revealed into that which is unknown, and to learn the number of the elect, or the actual personages whom Christ contemplated as his sheep, and for whom he died, it is easy to see that such facts, if known at all, can only be discovered in virtue of a revelation on that subject; but the worth of a revelation is measured by the faithfulness of the revealer; and if it be not safe to trust Jehovah, in telling us that whosoever believes in his Son is saved, it cannot be safer or more satisfactory to trust Him, were he to tell any inquirer that his name was among the elect, and written in the Lamb's book of life. All who deal with sinners in this manner, and who would find reasons for believing beyond the fact that Christ will receive all who come to him, are really deceiving them, and encouraging them to dishonour God. Surely it is obvious, that if God in mercy and grace assure any man that whosoever cometh to the Son, shall not be rejected, and if that man delay or refuse to come, until he further learn what God's provisions for other men are, he casts contempt on the arrangements of the Lord. Surely, if God's message of grace convey to any sinner the intelligence, that in fleeing to Christ he shall not be rejected, and that whosoever will, may take of the waters of life freely, and yet if the sinner thus assured shall delay in coming, or hesitate until he further know whether God has really made provision which will enable him to keep his word of promise to him in coming, and render it safe for the sinner to trust the Divine statement, that all who really come shall be saved, surely this is the consummation of arrogance, and the rebelliousness of unbelief.

The faith that believes on any testimony that certain sinners are elected, is not saving faith; the faith in the testimony that Christ died for me, is not saving faith; but the faith, which embraces Christ as he is offered to me, on the faithfulness of God, for my salvation,-this is saving faith. The perishing seaman may know all about the capacity of a life-boat, and believe that it would hold and save himself and all the crew, if they were safely in it; yet in believing this he is not saved. Apart altogether from the condition and prospects of others, the question for him is, whether or not he is called and invited to the boat, in the season of storm and danger, with an assurance that in coming and being seated