and were committing, then the problem will be solved. He himself was living law.

4. I shall next enquire how the Apostles, in the days of Pentecost, awakened sinners to a sense of their guilt.

5. I shall enquire what is the meaning of some strange things that we meet with, in the writings of some good old authors; and have often heard from the lips of some good old men; that original sin is the last sin men are convinced of.

These and some other enquiries I intend to make, will afford me a satisfaction as to what the doctrines of Adam's representation and original sin are not useful. If I find, on enquiry, that they are never once employed by the sacred inspired ambassadors of the skies, in awakening a guilty, perishing age, from the fatal security, to a sense of their sins, and a sacred terror of Jehovah's wrath, then shall I conclude, that these doctrines are of no use in awakening sinners, and bringing them to Jesus.

Ah! cries some prudent, cautious man, take care! This may excite a suspicion that that doctrine is not true, or at least, that you doubt its being useful. Well, since men must have their suspicions, let them suspect what they please. I tell them, and I tell those who deny the doctrine, that it is in the Bible. But the question is, to what end is it there? What purposes does it serve? Here is a stone; well, what is the use of it-To place in a building-to cut for a seal-to set in a ring? What is it good for?

I have as good a right to trouble the church of God as others have. And I will give this trouble to the brains of ministers, in order to save a great deal of trouble to the souls of their people. I will propose this

problem to them-What is precisely the use which the sacred writers make of the doctrine of Adam's representation and original sin?

Till this problem is solved, let them labour to convince sinners that they are sinners. No great matter how they came to be such, since they actually are so, and under an awful doom. And the moment they confess guilt, invite them to Jesus. When they are once safe in his securing arms, they can ask him many things as they lean on his bosom. He will teach every day more and more of the wickedness of their desperately wicked nature; and perhaps may lead them up to view the desperate wickedness of the whole race of men, and to see something respecting Adam's representative character. But they are his, and don't trouble them with puzzling problems. If they cannot see that they are guilty of Adam's-caution them only not to deny the doctrine, to repent of their own sins, and rely on the grace of their Lord.

When the above problem is resolved, the resolver will have a right to propose his question; and will greatly oblige me if he proposes the following: What is the precise use which the sacred writers make of the doctrine of election, and of Christ's representation ?

One thing has long been ascertained, that it is not the doctrine which should be taught to poor trembling convicts under a sense of the displeasure of the Awful Supreme.

That salvation is freely offered to all men who hear the gospel-and that every individual man who hears the gospel, is commanded to accept that salvation, uṇder the pains and penalty of everlasting condemnation, in case of a refusal-are truths so obviously taught in the Holy Scriptures, that one wonders how any human being should ever have entertained a doubt on the subject.

Those, however, who believe in the doctrine of election-who believe that Jesus Christ died to save a certain number of mankind, have been repeatedly and sorely pressed to assign a cause for offering salvation to the unelected, which should vindicate the moral candour and justice of Jehovah. And so long as they maintained that the imputability of Christ's righteousness depended on his representative characters in the covenant of grace-so long, I humbly conceive, their answer was unsatisfactory. We ought to speak freely and openly to our brothers of Adam's family; and in this spirit I do declare, that I never could be satisfied with the current explanations.

And yet nothing can be more certain, than that God is candid, true, and just, in this offer of life to mankind in general: And we can see and know that all his moral attributes stand clear of imputation in this offer. Nay, we shall attempt to show that all his moral attributes required that he should make such an

offer of salvation to all mankind. We shall show that God is not only just in this general offer, but that he would not have been just not to give it to all, provided he thought proper to give it to any.

In surveying such a statue as the Apollo Belvidere, one artist may be most struck with this profile, and another with that; while all admit that it is a miracle of art. In like manner, different men contemplating the general call of the gospel may be differently affected. One may view it as a merciful act in God so to offer life to offenders: another may consider it as some unaccountable mystery, which he is sure God can unravel, though he owns that he cannot. Now I must say, that this general offer of salvation to all men by Jesus Christ, never appears to me so glorious as when it is placed under the direct beam of pure justice. My meaning is this, that if God reveals the righteousness of Christ to mankind, he must command them to accept it: and that he would not be a just God if he did not so command them.

The reasoning is as follows: God does require of all men the righteousness of the law. It must be so ; for if he did not require this, he could require nothing, and all moral law, moral order, moral responsibility, would be at an end. God requires the righteousness of the law; but the gospel reveals the righteousness of Christ as the righteousness of the law; of consequence, God requires men to present to him the righteousness of Christ. Christ's righteousness is the righteousness of the law: but God requires the righteousness of the law; therefore God requires the righteousness of Christ of every man who hears the gospel sound. Can any thing be plainer? But let us turn it

that is, he would release them from the obligation of the moral law altogether. Is this possible! Then our high born race, made only for a little while lower than the angels, this glorious race, created in the image of God, must rank with the beasts that perish; no moral law, no moral order, no moral pleasure, no moral reward! Such a state of things is inconceivable.

The only possible evasion that the subtlest logician could avail himself of in order to keep clear of this conclusion is, the allegation that God might require men personally to work out the righteousness of the law, and refuse to allow them the righteousness of the Son. It is proper to treat such subjects with great modesty and fear. Who can say what Jehovah may or may not do? Who shall set limits to the Holy One of Israel? But I cannot conceive the supposition stated, to be at all worthy of God. The justice of God is the justice of a Being of infinite goodness, kindness, mercy—of infinite equity. And can I suppose that such a Being should require a righteousness which is not in the world; and refuse a righteousness which is in the world? Can it be supposed that he should say, I demand the righteousness of the law-here is the righteousness of the law-but I do not demand it.

Culling from the analogies of human things with divine, let me suppose the following case. My brother was under a contract, to effect a piece of work, and to receive ten thousand dollars on its completion, or pay a fine of ten thousand dollars in case of fail