salvation for all men, and their accountability for rejecting it. I do not understand Dr. Van Dyke to complain that all this is nowhere gathered up in a single statement, nor can he intend to complain that the Confession does teach (as it certainly does) the doctrine of "the limited" (or better, "the definite") atonement. I understand him to mean that the Confession taken at large nowhere recognizes adequately the freedom of the great Gospel offer, and man's consequent responsibility for rejecting it. But certainly this is somewhat rashly charged. It can hardly be said that the Confession nowhere teaches that "the eternal decree of God hinders no one from accepting the Gospel," when the Confession explicitly teaches that God is not the author of sin (would it not be a sin to refuse the Gospel?), and that by the decree no "violence is offered to the will of the creature" (III., i.), nor is his liberty taken away (III., i.), and when it teaches that God freely offers the Gospel to all, as we shall immediately see. For to affirm that the Confession does not teach that the offer to all men is free, and that their acceptance of it would be saving, is to forget some of its most emphatic passages. The Confession vindicates the duty of translating the Bible "into the vulgar language of every nation," on the ground that thereby, "the word of God dwelling in all plentifully, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope" (I., viii.). Here is clearly asserted the duty of the free proclamation, and the value of the truth as proclaimed to all—that all may through it be brought to "hope." Again (VII., vi.) it is declared that the ordinances of the New Covenant differ from those of the Old, in that the Gospel is held forth in them "in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy to all nations"—certainly a broad enough basis for any preaching. But the Confession goes
