phrase from the common translation, is equally extensive in meaning; for the terms "every one," are more unlimitedly universal than the expression "every man.' It is true, however, that in his 3d note he adds, “As "this discourse is concerning God's bringing many "sons into glory through the death of Christ, the "phrase may be supplied on account of every son;" but immediately he adds, "It is true however, that "Christ died on account of every one, in the largest "sense of the expression." And he further admits, that "the apostle hath declared in this passage, "that "Jesus was made for a little while less than angels, "that he might be capable of dying for the salvation "of mankind." Instead then, sir, of concluding with you, that Christ "undoubtedly" died only for every son, permit me, with the apostle Paul and Macknight, to believe that he died for the salvation of mankind, or for every one of the whole race of man. And on this construction only, can the gospel consistently be preached to every creature, tendering sonship and glory unto all, who receiving it, become thereby obedient unto the faith.

To notice minutely each minor remark, or half digested argument throughout your "Critique," might prove as disagreeable to you, as it would be tedious to me. Gratifying therefore it is to discover you already in advance to undermine and assault a point preeminently important. Your approach you announce by declaring that "the holy scriptures contain nothing "more favourable to the doctrine of a general atone"ment, than the declaration that Christ is a propitiation

"for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the "sins of the whole world." (1 John, 11. 2.) Al though greatly reluctant to make long quotations, yet your commentary, and observations on this text, render it necessary; nor is this at all surprising, for you constrain even St. John himself, thus to speak what he never intended: "My little children, sin not; but if

any man should be tempted and sin, let him remem"ber to prevent him from sinking in despair; that "we have an advocate with the Father, who is the "propitiation for the sins of every one who now be

lieves, yea, even for the sins of the whole world, "which shall at any future time believe on his name."? And then you observe, that "world is often restricted “in this manner, and Christ has a spiritual world, in "opposition to that which lieth in wickedness." De, lighted and instructed by your inventive ingenuity, permit its transfer to Romans VIII, 22, 23. "For έσ we know that the whole creation groaneth and tra"vaileth in pain together until now And not only 'they, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of

the spirit, even we ourselves, groan within ourselves,

waiting for the adoption, namely, the redemption of "the body." Taught by your commentitious exposition, we may now fancy St. Paul thus speaking;

For we believers who have the first fruits of the "spirit, do groan within ourselves, waiting for the re"demption of the body, yea, and the whole creation ""which shall at any future time' have the first fruits "of the spirit; they shall also like us groan for the re {demption of the body; but the present whole crea

tion being wicked, never groans for any deliverance; and whole creation is often restricted in this manner, because Christ has a spiritual whole creation, in

opposition to this which lieth in wickedness." Thus, sir, your manner of exposition is so very accommodating, that by it the scriptures may be made to mean any thing, every thing, or nothing, as may best suit the purpose of the expositor.

You next proceed, "If, however, as some suppose, "John addressed Jewish christians by the whole world, "he might have intended believers of all nations, or "of the gentiles; for the inhabitants of the Roman empire, and the uncircumcised, generally, were denominated the whole world, Luke 11, 1v. Upon these principles may be explained (1 John, iv, 14, "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent "the Son to be the Saviour of the world,") and all "similar passages which speak of God's loving the

66

66

world, and of Christ's being the saviour of the "world." All that is here said amounts to nothing in respect to argument, because it is built upon two idle suppositions; 1st, "If, as some suppose, John addressed Jewish believers," then 2dly, "by the whole world he might have intended believers of all nations, or of the gentiles." Answer 1st. If St. John did not address exclusively Jewish believers, and no one knows that he did, then, 2dly, He might not, by whole world, have meant gentile believers.. That St. John wrote to believers is certain beyond all controversy, and as he contrasted whole world against believers, he could only have meant thereby unbeliev

cr's. To suppose otherwise makes but tautological nonsense of the apostle's doctrine; for it would amount to this, viz. "Christ was a propitiation for believers' sins, and not for believers' sins only, but for all believers' sins.”

However inconclusive you are, sir, in respect to argument, yet you appear to excel most other men in facility of discovery: for you seem to have ascertained that Roman Empire, and gentile christians, are scripturally implied in the terms, The whole world. Had this important discovery been made only three centuries ago, what a new train of arguments might it have furnished, in vindication of the highest claims of the Papal Hierarchy, over the christian whole world. The discoverer must, as his due reward, undoubtedly have obtained a Cardinal's hat; whilst the reformers, Luther and Calvin, must have had to encounter a new host of difficulties.

It is not indeed, at all surprising, that you should exert all your ingenuity, and exhaust all your resources of argument, to restrict, if possible, the meaning of world, and whole world to believers only; because you perceive and feel, that if unbelievers in opposition to believers are thereby scripturally meant, your side of the question is irretrievably lost; a general or universal atonement is proved beyond all dispute, and your sense of a particular Election, shaken to its very foundation. The ill success attending the arguments you adduce, amount, at least, to a negative proof of fallacy upon your side of the question. Permit me now sir, to adduce some positive and conclusive proofs.

The term world hath various significations, which have no manner of connexion with the subject debated; such as the terraqueous globe; the globe and all its appendages, and inhabitants of every species: And that portion of mankind subject to Roman taxation at Christ's birth. The import of world and whole world as now debated, refers to mankind in two senses. It refers to numbers and moral character. This is exemplified in Romans 111, 19: "What things soever "the law saith, it saith to them who are under the "law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the "world may become guilty before God." Here numerically, it means the whole, not a part of mankind; and morally, it signifies not a good, but a bad state of men. It should, however, here be observed, that with respect to numbers, we differ much less than we do with respect to moral character; because we both admit, that the whole world, and all the world, sometimes comprehend all mankind, and at other times only a part of the human race. But with respect to character we greatly disagree. On one side it is contended, that world morally considered, is invariably contrasted with a state of submission to God, and is used consequently as implying only, alienation from, and opposition to God and his church. And on the other side you assert, "that world and whole world, ❝are often so restricted as to mean Christ's spiritual "world, in opposition to the world that lieth in wick"edness;" but a single proof capable of enduring examination, you have no where adduced.