every one, and has omnipotent power to claim them.

I feel that I ought almost to apologise for using the word "claim" at
all in such a conception. It looks too much as if the Father and the Son
were somewhat at variance in the glorious scheme of salvation. A
thousand times No. I even doubt if in the actual suffering of Christ,
the Father did not really suffer by sympathy as much as He! This is
holy ground!

Consider this. We are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature.
But where would be the honesty of preaching the Gospel of salvation to
one for whom no salvation is-possible? For certainly, no salvation is
possible for anyone for whom Christ did not atone. But it is now tacitly
admitted by all evangelical churches that He died for all,
notwithstanding that the doctrine of a limited atonement is still
asserted in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. Well it may; for if
the atonement were acknowledged to be universal, then this difficulty
would have to be faced--Why are all not saved? According to the doctrine
quoted elsewhere, that God infallibly accomplishes everything at which
He aims, all must infallibly be saved. For God certainly aimed at that
consummation in giving His Son as a ransom for all. Here is a crux from
which, it seems to me, there is no possible escape.

There is also this weakness--I might say this contradiction--in the
Methodist theology. They say that Christ died for all; but they teach
that all are not saved. Then He must have died in vain in regard to
those that are lost. That is the inevitable corollary. Not only did He
die in vain in their case; but His intention and desire was, not to die
in vain in reference to any. He certainly aimed at their salvation in
dying for them; but He does not accomplish it. To such horrible