"his Holy Spirit within them," that they might "not depart from him"-without depriving him of his essential character of supreme Benefactor. Yet this did not exculpate them, because they had every requisite to constitute their obligation to comply;-otherwise, what meaning can there be in those and similar expostulations? To suppose that the restoration of a spiritual principle, once possessed, but since forfeited and lost, is the basis of moral obligation, is a sentiment fraught with endless absurdities, though this, however, is not the place to point them out.

§ 12. Every one to whom the gospel is addressed is under obligation to seek the blessings it proposes, as well as to obey the precepts it contains;-such as, remission of sin, by repentance; acceptance into divine favour, by faith; gracious assistance, by prayer; holy conformity to Jesus Christ, by the use of all appointed means; and everlasting life, by walking in the ways of wisdom and universal obedience. These blessings flow through Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And were there no sense in which Christ "gave himself a ransom" for all those who are morally obliged to seek these blessings for his sake, I acknowledge that there would not be an adequate basis for their obligation to do so. If Jesus Christ, in

no sense, lived and died for their sake, how can they be obliged to seek these blessings for his mediation sake? Without adequate means, or objective sufficiency of m..rit, ready to be laid to their account on compliance, how could they be consistently exhorted to seek them? since it is unworthy of God to propose to them, on any terms, what was in no sense intended. for them. It is idle to say, that they are obliged to obey the command of God, until it can be shewn that he requires men to believe a falsehood. I know it has been observed, that God requires no man to believe that Christ died for him, in particular; but for sinners. But if he died for sinners indefinitely, is not each individual included in that indefinite number? And if by "sinners" be meant a definite number, how can every sinner to whom the gospel comes, be laid under an indefinite obligation, to seek these blessings for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered?

§ 13. These considerations, among many others, constrain me to regard the blessed 'Saviour, in the whole of his mediatorial undertaking, as the great ordinance of God, proposed to mankind without limitation, for the sake of whom they are encouraged to seek all the blessings they require. If they need an atoning sacrifice, a justifying righteousness, in short,

a perfect meritorious character as their substitute; these blessings are proposed to the destitute sinners indefinitely, and consequently to them. If it be said, that the proposal is made to those who feel their need, and on this condition, IF they experience their case to be miserable, and sincerely desire to obtain the blessing: it is granted, that there are special encouragements to such characters,-as in our Lord's sermon on the mount: but how can others be threatened for rejecting what was never, in any sense, intended for them? If it be again urged, that no sinner knows but that Christ died for him, or, does not know but he is included in the atonement made; I reply, does God require the ignorance of his creatures as the basis of his government? or, is it worthy of his character to make it the ground of human obligation?

§ 14. The question is not, whether special promises are made to persons under certain gracious exercises of mind; but whether any impenitent and unbelieving persons are condemned, finally condemned, for not accepting what God graciously offers, or seeking to obtain gospel blessings, through the mediation and meritorious sufferings of Christ. If none were, in any sense, designed for those who eventually perish, how can they be said to reject them? Or, how can they be condemned

for not seeking an impossibility, and an impossibility too, founded in the appointment of God, and not merely in their own impotence?

15. The atoning sacrifice of Christ, his sufferings, bloodshedding, and death, make a very prominent part of the apostolic writings. These being the substance and reality, to which all the typical sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation referred, nothing could be more proper and important, than the stress laid upon them by the apostles. But surely, the Redeemer's incarnation and obedience, without which there could have been no atoning sacrifice, must be equally important and necessary in themselves, nor indeed can I perceive any good reason, why every part of the Saviour's undertaking should not be considered as equally essential to our Redemption;- and I would humbly propose it to consideration, whether every part of his substitution be not of the same character and extent? Why should one part be more limited than another? If his death be limited, why not his obedience and incarnation? If he assumed the nature of mankind indefinitely, why not their sorrows? If he obeyed the law without limitation, why not suffer the penalty threatened by it, to an equal extent? And if his mediatorial obedience unto death,

being of infinite worth, admitted of no increase or diminution; on what principle can we say, that the atoning merits admitted of any? Is it conceivable, that by a supposed increase or diminution of objects ultimately saved, his incarnation, conformity to the law, or suffering at the hand of justice, could have been otherwise, than they were? Can we, even in thought, add to, or diminish from infinite worth?

§ 16. It has been said, that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for all, had it been the design of God to include them. Is not this, however, a virtual acknowledgement, that the limitation is not in the sacrifice itself, but in the objects? If the atoning sacrifice were even capable of any diminution or limitation, for that very reason it would not be commensurate to the demands of justice, and infinite perfection. What law and justice required was a person of infinite worth in human nature, and that nature to become a sacrifice without spot or blemish; less was not sufficient, and more was not necessary,―irrespective entirely of the number of objects. As the sun is neither diminished nor increased on account of the blindness or the sight, the increase or diminution, of terrestrial inhabitants; so the sun of righteousness, in his incarnation, obedience, sufferings, merits, atonement, righteousness, and federal perfec-.