work on the wheels, and the veffel that he made of clay, was marred in the hand of the potter, fo he made it again another veffel, as it feemed good to the Potter to make it." Obferve, the first veffel being marred was dishonorable, and it marred IN the potter's hand. The potter did not make the veffel perfectly found and good, and lay it away whole, and the veffel mar itfelf afterwards; but it marred, while in the band of the Potter. The Potter did not condemn the clay as good for nothing, because it marred; he did not caft it away and take other clay, to make another veffel; but, of the fame clay, made a veffel as it feemed good unto him to make it. This veffel not being marred, was a veffel of honor. Here the reader may fee the power of God manifested, in making, of the fame lump, a veffel of honor, and a veffel of difhonor.

The thread of the apoftle's difcourfe to the Romans, in which he introduced the paffage above written, was intended to fhow the diftinction between law and gospel, or fieth and fpirit; by turning to the eighth chapter, the reader will find himfelf affifted in the introduction of this particular. We then fay, that as man ftands in the earthly Adam, he is a marred veffel. Chrift himself, when for us he was made a fin offering, in the fleshly nature, was "more marred than any man, and his form than the fons of men." But in his refurrection, he was a veffel of honor and immortal glory; " and as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall, alfo, bear the image of the heavenly." Further, see the two veffels defcribed in 1 Cor. xv. 42. "It is fown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is fown in dishopor, it is raised in glory; it is fown in weakness, it is raifed in power; it is fown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Again, Romans xi. 7, &c. « What then? Ifrael hath not obtained that which he feeketh; but the election hath obtained it, and

the raft were blinded; according as it is written, God hath given them the fpirit of flumber, eyes that they should not fe, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. And David faith, let their table be made a fuare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompenfe unto them; let their cy is be darkened, that they may not fee, and bow down their back alway."

On this paffage, and others like it, is built the doctrine of limited falvation, by Jefus Chrift, according to the foreknowledge and predeftination of the Almighty. It is argued, that thofe who are here called the elect, are thofe for whom Chrift died, and thofe alone who will finally obtain falvation by him. But why any perfon fhould make fuch a mif take, in reading this chapter, I am at a lofs. The falvation of the elect is not argued, in this chapter; but the cer tainty of the falvation of those who were blinded, and the propriety of believing it, occupies the greatest part of it. Obferve the words next to those I have quoted above, verfe 11, &c. I fay then, have they ftumbled, that they should fall? God forbid : but rather through their fall falvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them unto jealousy. Now, if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullnefs ?" Again, verfe 15th, "For if the cafting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life, from the dead ?" Again, in his argument to the Romans, he endeavors to fhow thein, by the fimilitude of the branches of olive trees, that they ought to believe that thofe blinded ones, though broken off through unbelief, would be grafted in again. See verfe 24, "For, if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature, into a good olive tree; how much more fhall thefe, which be the natural

branches, be grafted into their own olive tree ?" The apof tle feems defirous to inftruct the Roman church, and argues the point fervently; fee verfes 25, 26. "For I would not, brethren, that ye fhould be ignorant of this mystery, (left ye fhould be wife in your own conceits,) that blindnefs in part is happened to Ifrael, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And fo all Ifrael fhall be faved; as it is written, there fhall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and fhall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Compare the laft verfe which I have quoted, with Levit. xxvi. 44, 45. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not caft them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their fakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt, in the fight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the Lord." And Ifaiah xlv. 25. "In the Lord fhal all the feed of Ifrael be juftified, and fhall glory. Many like paffages might be quoted, from various parts of the fcrip ; but, perhaps, the above will fuffice for this particular purpose. More, of the like nature, will be noticcd, in the fequel of this work.

An

The feriptures have been as much violated, to maintain the doctrine which I am examining, as good reafon is, by fuppofing God to be fo infinitely partial, as he must be, in the of reafon, in order to be what the docrine reprefents

eye

him.

I fhall now invite the attention of the reader to another fyftem of atonement, which was undoubtedly formed, with a view to fhun the abfurdities in the former, and to get rid of fome of the confequences that were naturally deducible from the idea of the fufferings of Chrift. This fyftem fup. pofes, that the atonement by Chrift was not intended for the

L

falvation of any part of the human race; that its main end, and fole object, was the glory of the Supreme Being, as manifefted in his holy and righteous law. In fupport of this plan, it is argued, that it is inconfiftent, for infinite wifdom and goodness to prefer an inferior object to a fuperior one ; that all creation, when compared with the Creator, finks into nothing, bearing no poffible proportion to the infinite Jehovah; of courfe, that God always has his own glory in view, as his fupreme object, in all he does.

This plan agrees with the former, in fuppofing fin to be of infinite magnitude, and deferving of endless punishment; that, as the law of God is infinite, like himfelf, finite man is infinitely to blame, for not fulfilling all its requirements; and that the penalty of the law is endlefs mifery, which penalty Chrift fuftained; not with a view of acquitting the finmer, not in room and stead of the tranfgreffor, as is fuppofed in the other plan; but for the honor of divine juftice, and the glory of his Father. It is further and, that by Christ's fuffering the penalty of the law, juft is as fully fatisfied, as if all mankind had been made miferable for an eternity. And this being the cafe, it is now juft and right for God to acquit as many of the finful race of Adam, as is confiftent with his grand object, which is himfelf; yet, by no means rendering it unjust for God to punish, to all eternity, as many as is neceffary, in order for the fatisfying of the fame grand object.

I first inquire into the propriety of the argument, on which this plan of atonement feems to be founded; which is, that God always acts for his own infinite and incomprehenfible glory; never ftooping fo low, as to act with an intention for the good of his creatures.

ift. I afk, is God as infinitely glorious as he can be, or not? If it be anfwered, that he is; then, if his object, in all he does, is to augment his own glory, he never has, nor will he ever accomplish his intention. If it is argued, that it is not to augment his own glory, but to fecure it, and maintain it in its proper fplendor, it argues it to be of a perifhable nature, and that it would decay, were it not for the continual vigilance of the Almighty, in preferving it. If it is argued, that neither of thefe objects is right, but that it is the manifeftation of his glory to intelligent beings, which is the grand defign or object of God, in all his acts, without any reference to the effect which this manifeftation has on thofe to whom it is made, I fay, the object has now, dwind led into annihilation; there is not the fmalleft imaginable atot of it left. To fuppofe, that any rational being can with, or defire, to accomplish any piece of labor, without having any reference to the confequences, is too glaringly abfurd, to need refutation. Now the nature of the propofition, which I am examining, confines the motive of Deity within himself, and himfom his creation. In order, therefore, to look at the Almighty, as he is by this doctrine reprefented, we must look at him as deftitute of a creation, and view him abftractly from all his creatures. But may I afk, what title to give that being of whom we fpeak? The name Jehovah, truly has reference to his felf-exiftence, and to his character as the giver of exiftence alfo. The name God, implies a being who is worshipped. Lord, fignifies a poffeffor. I am that I am, has reference to an unchangeable being, but does not determine a being of goodnefs. I afk, again, what do we know of an Almighty, only by his works? If his exiftence can ever be determined, by any other means, I am ignorant of the What do we know, but by our fenfes ? Have we any fenfe of good, or evil, that does not concern created beings? We may fay, if we pleafe, that God acts for his own effen