gave himself a ransom for all men. These two ideas, when brought together, amount to our proposition. If Christ gave himself a ransom for all, and if those for whom he gave himself are his church, then it follows that all men are of his church.

The second argument which our text furnishes, in support of the proposition that all men are of the church of Christ, involves the very objection which an opposer would not fail to urge. We mean the moral condition or state of mankind set forth in our text. The common opinion of our divines supposes that no one can belong to the church of Christ until by sanctification, effectual calling, regeneration or the new birth, the subject becomes united to Christ. But this opinion is by our text disallowed; for it informs us, that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Now that which is already clean needs no cleansing, and that which is holy needs not to be sanctified. It is here evident that our text speaks of the church in a state of uncleanness and unholiness, in which state Christ loved it.

Though this argument may appear novel, yet its validity cannot be denied; for if Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, the unsanctified, unclean state of man is proof that he is the subject of the divine favour. And when we unite with this consideration the fact that Christ gave himself a ransom for all men, our evidence is complete, and our proposition supported.

In further confirmation of the foregoing arguments, reference may be had to emblems used in scripture which regard the cleansing of mankind from moral defilement, and also to those passages which call on sinners to repent and turn from the evil of their ways. If the scriptures represent the Saviour as a refiner's fire and as a fuller's soap, they also represent the subjects of his grace as

unrefined and unclean. And if the scriptures call on men to repent of their sins, to do justice and to love mercy, it is because they are in a sinful state.

It is of importance that the hearer should understand, that while our remarks go to prove that men are unclean, unholy, and sinful, they are thereby rendered effectual in proving that they belong to the church of Christ. Nor can we conceive of any possible way to avoid our proposition of universality as long as the command to repent is acknowledged to be universal.

As our text asserts that Christ gave himself for the church, the universality of the church seems evidently proved by the testimony which informs us that Christ gave himself a ransom for all men. Such, therefore, is the importance of such testimony in the case under consideration, that we may be justified in referring to a competent number of passages which prove this point of doctrine.

The prophet Isaiah in his 53d chapter says: "All we, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Heb. ii. 9. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 John ii. 1, 2, "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Here, all men, every man, and the whole world, are said to be the subjects of this grace of the Saviour. Will candid hearers say that this is not directly to the subject? Will they contend that the evidence is not altogether sufficient? What would an hon

est Methodist say to a Calvinist, who should contend that Jesus Christ gave himself for none but such as believe in Calvinistic doctrine? Would he not very justly reply, and say, then the whole world believe in Calvinistic doctrine, for the scriptures maintain that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that he tasted death for every man, and gave himself a ransom for all men ; but they no where inform us that he gave himself for a Calvinist, or for any other particular denomi nation?

My friends, if there were even an appearance of any other sentiment in the scriptures, on this subject, the case would be very different from what it now is. But there is no intimation in the word of truth which gives the least authority for limiting the grace, which is the subject of our present inquiry.

You will recollect that Christ did not give himself a ransom for all men in order to make them his church, but because they were his church, and because he loved his church, and that he might sanctify and cleanse his church from all uncleanness, and from all unholiness.

The hearer is now reminded of what we requested in the introduction of these arguments, namely, that a strict attention should be given to ascertain how the arguments should tend to the support of universalism, and to illustrate the nature of salvation. If you have duly complied with this request it may be well to make up an opinion on the subject, as far as the arguments go, to which we have attended. The amount of these arguments seem to be this-All mankind are found to be in a state of sin, Christ gave himself for all, because all belonged to his church, and he gave himself for the church that he might sanctify and cleanse it from all sin. If you view these points in any good measure supported, of course you must acknowl edge that universal salvation is thus supported ; and you must also be satisfied that the holiness of

all men is embraced as their salvation, which will tend to do away the objection that this doctrine tends to impiety and irreligion.

Our next labours, according to promise, will be directed to set forth, in its true character, the love of Christ to the church.

That this subject may the more clearly be seen, let us ask the question, why did Christ love the church? Answer negatively; not because of its moral holiness, righteousness and perfection, for these were wanting. If the church had been morally clean, Christ would not have given himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it. Our minds are therefore directed to the consideration of the divine testimony which so fully represents the love of God to sinners. St. Paul, in the 5th of Romans reasons as follows; "For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." On this passage let us remark; it was the ungodly for whom Christ died, it was the ungodly whom God loved, and the death of Christ was designed to commend that love to the ungodly. My friends, did you ever hear a Universalist preacher express his sentiments more clearly or more boldly than they are set forth in this truly wonderful passage? If it were possible to make the accusation of licentiousness lie against us for preaching the love of God to sinners, is it not plain that the whole force of the accusation must fall on the testimony last quoted? If God can, consistently, love the ungodly, if Christ could die for the ungodly, and that in order to commend the love of God to the ungodly, what could a Universalist say more? Was there even one who did say more? or was there even one that could think beyond this declaration of St. Paul? 12*.

To the Ephesians, the same apostle speaks of the great love wherewith God loved them, even when they were dead in sin. And the beloved John says, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins." These passages are designed to set forth the great and glorious truth that the death of Christ was the consequence of the divine love to sinners, which corroborates the words of our text; "even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it." This important subject being clear, let us still continue the question, why Christ loved the church? It has been proved that he loved the church, and it has likewise been proved that he did not love it because it was of a holy character, it being in a sinful state. It remains therefore, that we endeavour to understand the true reason why he loved it. This answer is easily found. It is found in the righteousness of God. God is love, and love is righteousness. Hatred is the opposite of God, and is sinful. It is no more in the nature of God to hate than to sin, which is impossible. The divine love is towards all creatures. The "Lord is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." This is perfect and infinite righteousness. This love of God was commended to us in that Christ died for the ungodly. Christ is the righteousness of God to us. And in order to be so, he must love us, for love is righteousness. All the reason that we are not righteous is because we do not love as God does. "He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law, for love is the fulfilling of the law."

The answer of this question is found also in the emblems which the scripture uses to represent our relation to Christ. St. Paul says to the Corinthians; "I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God." In this constitutional union we learn the reason why Christ loves mankind; for "we are members of his