sis Zagerra), a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow."* That the particle is here adversative, not exceptive, is plain from the circumstance that Sarepta was not in Judea, and of course the widow who abode there was not a widow in Israel; the manner in which God treated this widow, by sending to her his prophet, is contrasted with his treatment of the many widows in Israel, to whom he sent him not. Thus, also, in the passage which immediately follows:- Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving (si) Naaman the Syrian.'t Naaman the Syrian was not a leper in Israel; the force of the passage lies in the implied contrast ;- none of THEM was cleansed. But NAAMAN THE SYRIAN was

cleansed.' Take two other examples of the adversative force of the particle :-'And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only (si un) those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads,' i. e. only those men shall they hurt. And there shall in no wise enter into it, any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but (si) they which are written in the Lamb's book of life' i. e. they shall enter into it. Surely, after these passages are considered, no candid person will insist that Judas, the son of perdition, was included among those who were given to Christ to be redeemed by his blood; for, on the † Luke iv. 27.

* Luke iv. 25, 26.

Rev. ix. 4. xvi. 27.

same principle might it be maintained, that the Father was a man, that Sarepta was a city of Judea, that Naaman the Syrian was a leper in Israel, that the men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads were grass or trees, and that those who are written in the Lamb's book of life were persons who are defiled, and work abomination, and make a lie. That a mere English reader might be led, by the passage under consideration, to adopt the idea, that those for whom Christ died may possibly perish, would not be wonderful, although the texts in which a parallel phraseology occurs might have prevented even such from error; but that persons conversant with the original language should take · such a view of it, is utterly inexcusable, inasmuch as the very opposite is what the original terms import.

'But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.** Similar to this is a passage in another epistle of the same writer, which must be explained on the same principles: And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died ?'† These texts seem at first sight to be formidable; but they are capable of being satisfactorily explained. It occurs to remark, at the outset, that, if they actually imply that those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ may finally fall away and perish, then do they directly contradict other passages of scripture, which as expressly teach us the

* Rom. xiv. 15.

f 1 Cor. viii. 11.

contrary of all this; such as the following:- All that the Father hath given me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing. I give unto them eternal life, and they shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.-Who shall also CONFIRM you unto the end, that ye may be blameless unto the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.-The Lord is faithful who shall STABLISH you and keep you from evil. Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.** Such as maintain the possibility of any for whom Christ died perishing, will find it difficult to explain these passages in consistency with this opinion; but they are as much bound to reconcile the passages on which they found the sentiment in question with those we have now adduced, as are the advocates of a definite atonement to reconcile the same passages with the sentiment they have espoused. Nay, we greatly mistake if the latter be not a much more easy task than the former.

There are several ways in which these passages may be fully explained. The brother for whom Christ died,' may be taken in its popular sense to denote one who professes or seems to be such, although he may not be so in reality. It is in this way that the persons to whom the apostolical epistles are addressed are designated, 'saints,' 'elect,' &c., because as members of the church

* John vi. 37, 39. x, 23; 1 Cor, i. 8; 2 Thess, iii. 3; 1 Pet, i, 5.

they profess to be such, and, while they do nothing to belie their profession, we are bound in charity to suppose them what they profess to be; and that some who thus profess to be brethren may perish, is perfectly possible.-Besides, the peace or comfort of a person's mind may be destroyed, without supposing the destruction of the soul; and it is not improbable that, in the former of the passages on which we are commenting, this may be the thing that is meant, as a contrast is manifestly designed between the untender conduct of the uncharitable brother, and the grace of Christ in giving himself unto the death for us.—Or rather, the true explanation of these passages seems to be, that the tendency of the wicked conduct denounced is what is pointed out. The tendency is to destroy, or make to perish, the brother for whom Christ died. All sin tends to the destruction of the soul; and such, in every case, would be its effect, were there nothing to prevent it. This is the case with the sins of the people of God, as well as those of others; and nothing but the justifying righteousness of the Redeemer in which they are interested by faith, prevents this end from supervening. Such, of course, is the case with the temptations to sin to which they are exposed from others: the tendency of these temptations is to bring about their destruction, to cause them to perish. Because such a consummation shall not be permitted to take place, it is not less true that it is the tendency of the conduct in question to lead to it. And, in speaking of a line of evil conduct, and setting forth its enormity with a

view to deter from pursuing it, what more natural or fitting than to describe it by its evil and pernicious tendency! It is thus that he who believeth not God is said to make God a liar. The tendency of the conduct is to such an end; but the end itself can never be in reality. So in the case before us; the tendency of the conduct described is to cause the brother to perish for whom Christ died, although such is the grace of God that this consummation shall never be permitted to take place.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace."* The apostle is showing the aggravated criminality of apostasy from the gospel. One aggravating circumstance is, that the apostate treats with contempt the blood of the covenant; which blood is said to be, as magnifying still more the crime, that 'wherewith he was sanctified.' The question here is, who is it that is referred to by the pronoun 'he'? Who is it that was sanctified? Is it the apostate himself? or is it the Son of God? The former is, of course, understood by those who adduce the passage as an objection to the doctrine of a definite atonement. But this we are disposed to question; the immediate antecedent is the Son of God; thus understood, the passage is rendered more strongly expressive of the writer's object; and this is the

* Heb. x. 29.