only who have already raised themselves from death; but it would be a sentence of everlasting exclusion against all those who have failed as often as we have done, and have had to learn from bitter experience the sad lesson of their utter helplessness. But, praised be God, the whole ransom has been paid, the whole claim of the law satisfied, the utmost depth of ruin fully provided for; so that now there is life in the midst of death, and full, complete, and final reconciliation presented to the sinner, at the very time when he is lost in his fall. Did the world ever produce an offer so free? and was there ever yet a religious system in the world which presented such a salvation, on such terms, to the sinner? * * * * * III. But still there is an _exclusiveness_ in the Gospel. Let us however clearly understand, when we speak of exclusiveness, that we do not mean exclusiveness in the glad tidings, for, as already shown, these glad tidings are freely sent to every man; but what we do mean is,—that Christ Jesus is the only Saviour, and that “there is none other name under heaven, given amongst men, whereby we must be saved.” We do mean that God has not promised salvation through a conscientious devotion to Buddha, or Vishnu, or Mahommed, or reason, or the light of nature; but that God, in giving Christ as our life, gave Him as the only Source of life, and not as one amongst many Saviours. Now this exclusiveness appears to be the necessary consequence of the breadth and freedom of the offer; and had I had the framing of the thesis, I should have preferred to have stated it as “The breadth, freeness, and _consequent_ exclusiveness of the Gospel:” for if we consider the great origin of the Gospel,—the eternal love of God; the marvellous plan of the Gospel,—the sacrifice of the Son of God; the boundless mercy of the Gospel,—as seen in the offering such a salvation to every poor sinner under heaven; and the unutterable grace of the Gospel,—in offering it freely to poor sinners, at the very time that those sinners are hopelessly sunk in the ruin of their sin;—it does appear to be an act of the deepest presumption for men to suppose that there may be other ways through which men can be saved, other systems through which men can be restored. If men could be saved any other way, why did the Lord Jesus come? why did He die? If self-denying idolatry or conscientious morality were sufficient, why was there any Gospel at all? and why were we not left to win our way to eternal life, by morality and heathenism in all their varied forms? If the Gospel be regarded as a Divine remedy for the sinner, then surely it must be exclusive. If this be God’s plan, then surely a plan from God was needful, and no human plan was sufficient. If it were a human plan, then I could perfectly understand that other human plans might be equally effectual,—or, I should rather say, equally fruitless; but if it be really God’s plan,