has been trodden over by the parties in this controversy. We ask you to consider some passages which we think far more decisive. Look at Hebrews x. 26, 27: "For if we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." It is agreed, on all hands, that the Apostle here describes such as openly and deliberately apostatize from the truth, and set themselves vigorously to oppose Christianity; men who are given up of God, and irrevocably sealed over to destruction, as a just judgment for their wickedness. Now, with respect to these men he saith, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. The original is peculiarly strong and determinate. Οὐκ ἔτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπο

Xsiterai duoia—a sacrifice for sin no more, or no longer remains. What does this imply, but that antecedent to this apostacy, there was a sacrifice which might have availed to take away their sins. But now there is none. They are left without hope, because cut off, by the just judgment of God, from any connection with the only sacrifice which can take away sin. They have trampled under foot the blood of the covenant; and now, instead of pleading for mercy, it pleads for vengeance. But what propriety in this statement, if the blood of Christ was never an available sacrifice for them, and they never stood in any other relation to it than the apostate angels? it having, in no sense, ever been shed for them. Surely, it must be strange language, to say there remaineth no more a sacrifice to those for whom there never was a sacrifice. If this passage stood alone, on the subject before us, I should consider it as settling the question forever, that the death of Christ bore such a relation to the sins of men, as to open a way for the restoration of the whole human family to the favor of God. For, if it bore such a relation to any one soul who is finally lost, with what reason could it be denied with respect to others?

Look, again, at 1 Cor. viii. 11: "And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." But how shall he perish? why, by being emboldened to eat those things which are offered unto idols, as the Apostle teaches us in the preceding verse, he shall be guilty of renouncing the living and true God, or which is equally fatal, confounding him with idols. The Apostle does not say he shall be injured, greatly injured, but he shall perish; using the very same word which Christ does, when he says that God gave his only begotten Son, that men need not perish, but have everlasting life; and the same word which Jude uses, when he speaks of those who perished in the gainsaying of Core. It is perfectly idle to attempt to explain away the solemn and awful import of this word; and yet if it be allowed its proper signification-if to perish is to lose one's soul—then men may be lost for whom Christ died; which concludes unanswerably in favor of our doctrine, that Christ died for all, or that his sacrifice bore a solemn and important relation to all.

We draw the same conclusion from 2 Peter ii. 1, where the Apostle speaks of some who privily bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. You have already heard the opinion of Calvin upon this text. And though our brethren of another school have often nibbled at it, and applied to it the various arts of criticism, still it stands as firm as the pillar of Hercules against the sentiment that Christ died for his people only.

If wicked men deny the Lord that bought them, doubtless they were bought, and bought by the price of that blood which alone is an adequate ransom for the soul.

But we are told that the Lord that bought them was not Jesus Christ, and of course, that they were not bought with his blood. Who, then, was this Lord, and

1

how did he buy these wicked men? Why, the Lord is God the Father, the Sovereign Ruler of the world, and he bought these men as Jehovah bought the Israelites, when he delivered them from the bondage of Egypt. But when was this interpretation first introduced? Can it be found in any of the ancient scholiasts or glossaries? Its modern date shows its origin; that it has been resorted to, not from its obvious agreement with the words, but from the necessity of the case. It has been seen that the old interpretation would be fatal to a certain theory; the words of the Apostle, therefore, must speak something else than what the Church from the beginning has supposed them to speak.

But let us hear the defence of this novel interpretation. The word in the original, translated Lord, is derrórns, and not Kugos, the more common appellation of Jesus Christ. This word, it is said, signifies Supreme Ruler, and is thus applied to God in several places in the New Testament. True; but is it not also applied to Christ, and even to men who sustain the relation of master to others as their servants? Whom does the Apostle mean by decórns in 2 Tim. ii. 21, where he says, "If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the master's use?" Whom does Jude mean by decwórns in a passage strikingly parallel with that under consideration, where he speaks of "certain men crept in unawares, who were of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ," as it should be rendered. The best lexicographers tell us that this word has the force of dominus among the Latins, and may be applied to God as the Supreme Ruler, to Jesus Christ as the great Head of his Church, or to any head or master of a family. Nothing is therefore more futile than the attempt to escape the obvious construction of this passage

by a criticism upon the word dedwórns, which in this very place, Schleusner tells us, is applied to Jesus Christ. But if God, the Supreme Ruler of the world, is here designated by decrórns, I should like to know a little more definitely how he has bought these wicked men, who privily bring in damnable heresies? Will you say he delivered them from the bondage of corruption? This neither the text nor the context declares. But if it were so, what was the price which he paid for their deliverance? When he bought the Israelites, he paid a price for them, and a heavy price it was; he gave Egypt for them-Ethiopia and Sheba for a ransom. Was there anything to correspond with this, when he bought the false prophets and false teachers spoken of in this text? According to our judgment, there was never a harder shift to blunt the edge of plain and pointed Scripture testimony. But we need not wonder, because as long as this text stands in the Bible, unperverted, it is entirely fatal to that scheme which contends that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for the elect only.

Let me draw your attention to a single remark more. This important passage has always been considered as parallel with that in Jude, already mentioned. There is a striking resemblance in all the important points of character attributed to these wicked men by the two sacred writers, and an equally striking analogy in their doom. But what did they do, besides turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and leading a life of brutal sensuality? What did they do which in a peculiar manner irrevocably sealed them to perdition? Why, they denied the δεσπότης, and by δεσπότης Jude manifestly intends the Lord Jesus Christ.

LECTURE XIV.

ELECTION.

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."-ACTS XIII. 48.

BEFORE entering on the discussion of the doctrine supposed to be contained in these words; let me advert a moment to the original. Doubts have been entertained by some whether our translators have properly rendered the first clause, " as many as were ordained to eternal life." They think the word translated ordained, ought to have been rendered disposed, set in order or prepared; and one writer renders the clause thus: "As many as were earnestly determined upon eternal life;" leaving it uncertain whether this determination was God's or the creature's, though most probably the creature's. He has the good sense, however, to acknowledge that this determination, if it appertain to the creature was a preparation of heart flowing from the discriminating goodness of God, who is the author of all good desires in us. The phrase in the original, is σε ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν,” and the disputed word is τεταγμένοι, a participle in the passive voice from the verb radow of Fastw. ow, according to Schleusner, has several significations closely allied to each other. Properly it signifies:

Τασ

First. Statuo, ordino, colloco, and certo, ordino, colloco et dispono, i. e., to appoint, ordain, set or place, and to set or place in a certain order.

Secondly, and metaphorically, it signifies præscribo, præcipio, mando, jubeo, i. e., to direct, command, order, require, &c.; and

Thirdly, it has the signification of destino, and he quotes our