chosen of God, given of the Father, &c. either because of their actually being believers, or because it was foreseen that they would believe, or, as we suppose, because God eternally purposed in himself that they should believe, and be saved. It cannot be on account of the first; seeing they were chosen before the foundation of the world, and given to Christ prior to their believing in him. It cannot be on account of the second; because, then, what he had done for us must have been according to something good in us, and not according to his own purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began. It would also be contrary to all those scriptures recited above, which represent our being chosen, and given of the Father, as the cause of faith and holiness. If our conformity to the image of the Son of God, our faith, holiness, and obedience, are the effects of election, they cannot be the ground, or reason of it. If men are given to Christ prior to the consideration of their coming to him, then they cannot be said to be given on account of their so coming. If, then, it cannot be on account of either the first or the second, I conclude it must be on account of the last.

The death of Christ is assigned as a reason why none, at the last day, shall be able to lay any thing to the charge of God's elect. But, if it extends equally to those who are condemned as to those who are justified, how does it become a security against such a charge? Whatever difference there may be, in point of security, between those who, at that day, are justified, and those who are condemned, the death of Christ is not supposed to have had any influence towards it. The security of the elect should rather have been ascribed to what they themselves have done in embracing the Saviour, than to any thing done by him; seeing what he did was no security whatever. It was no more than a cipher, in itself considered. The efficacy of the whole, it seems, rested, not upon what Christ had done, but upon what they themselves had done in believing in him.

VII. The character of the redeemed in the world above implies the sentiment for which we plead. Not only did the four living creatures, and the four-and-twenty elders (which

* Rom. viii. 33, 34.

seem to represent the church militant) adore the Lamb, saying, Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; but it is witnessed of those who are without fault before the throne of God, that they were redeemed (or bought) from among men, being the first-fruits unto God and the Lamb. But, if all of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, were bought by the blood of Christ, there could be no possibility of any being bought from among them.

The above are some of the reasons which induce me to think there was a certain, absolute, and, consequently, limited design in the death of Christ, securing the salvation of all those, and only those, who are finally saved. The reader will now judge of the confident manner in which P. asks, What end can it answer to take all these pains to vindicate a doctrine which God has never revealed?" (p. 36.)

§2. WHEREIN SOME NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE ARGUMENTS OF P. FOR THE CONTRARY HYPOTHESIS.

The limited extent of Christ's death is said to be "inconsistent with divine goodness, and with the tender mercies of God over all his works."* (p. 73.) To this it is replied, Fallen angels are a part of God's works, as well as fallen men; but Christ did not die for them: if, therefore, his death is to be considered as the criterion of divine goodness, and if the exercise of punitive justice is inconsistent with that attribute, then, suppose we were to admit that Christ died for all mankind, still the Psalmist's assertion cannot be true, and the difficulty is never the nearer being removed.

That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands, as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is, whether he loves them all alike; and whether the exercise of punitive justice

*Surely, it is of vast importance to remember, that the death of Christ was intended not to prevent the divine character's being reproached on account of the strictness of his law in condemning all transgressors; but to prevent its being censured on account of the exemption of any transgressors from deserved punishment. Whatever considerations prove the necessity, or infinite expediency, of the atonement, must prove it was altogether optional, and an instance of infinite and sovereign goodness in God to provide a Lamb for a sin-offering.

R.

be inconsistent with universal goodness? It is going great lengths, for a weak worm to take upon him to insist that divine goodness must be exercised in such a particular instance, or it can have no existence at all. I dare not say, there is no love, no goodness, in all the providences of God towards mankind, nor yet in his giving them the means of grace and the invitations of the gospel, though he does not do all for them which he could do, to incline them to embrace them, and has neither

purposed nor provided for such an end. On the contrary, I believe these things, in themselves considered, to be instances of divine goodness, whatever the issue of them may be through men's depravity.

But, if Christ did not die for all mankind, it is said, “His tender mercies cannot be exercised towards them, no, not in the good things of this life; for these only increase their misery; nor in life itself; for every moment of it must be a dreadful curse." (p. 73.) But, horrid as these consequences may appear, a denier of God's foreknowledge would tell P. that the same consequences followed upon his own scheme, and in their full extent. He would say, 'You pretend to maintain the tender mercies of God over all his works; and yet you suppose him perfectly to know, before any of these works were brought into being, the part that every individual would act, and the consequent misery that would follow. He was sure that millions of the human race would so act, place them under what advantages he would, as that they would certainly involve themselves in such a condition that it were better for them never to have been born. He knew precisely who would come to such an end, as much as he will at the day of judgment. Why, then, did he bring them into existence? Surely they had better never have been born; or, if they must be born, why were they not cut off from the womb; seeing he was sure that every moment of time they existed would only increase their misery? Is this goodness? Are these his tender mercies?' . . . . I tremble while I write! For my part, I feel difficulties attend every thing I think about. I feel myself a poor worm of the dust, whose understanding is infinitely too contracted to fathom the ways and works of God. wish to tremble and adore; and take comfort in this-that what I know not now, I shall know hereafter.

I

But it is nowhere expressly said that Christ died only for a part of mankind." (p. 71.) It is expressly said that he gave himself that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people; that he laid down his life for the sheep; that he loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he died that he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad; and that those who are without fault before the throne of God, were bought from among men. But be it so, that we nowhere expressly read that Christ did not die to redeem all mankind; the scriptures do not so much deal in negatives, as in positives: their concern is not so much to inform mankind what is not done, as what is done. I know not that it is any where expressly said, that all mankind are not to be baptized; yet I suppose P. well understands that part of our Lord's commission to be restrictive.

There was no necessity for the apostles to publish the divine purposes to mankind in their addresses to them. These were not designed as a rule of action, either for the preachers or the hearers. It was sufficient for them both, that Christ was ready to pardon and accept of any sinner whatever, that should come unto him. It was equally sufficient, on the other hand, if, after people believed, they were taught those truths which relate to the purposes of grace on their behalf, with a view to cut off all glorying in themselves, and that they might learn to ascribe the whole difference between themselves and others to the mere sovereign grace of God. Hence it is, that the chief of those scriptures which we conceive to hold forth a limitation of design in the death of Christ, or any other doctrine of discriminating grace, are such as were addressed to believers.

But the main stress of the argument seems to lie in the meaning of such general expressions as all men-worldwhole world, &c. If these are discussed, I suppose I shall be allowed to have replied to the substance of what P. has advanced; and that is all I can think of attending to.

It is admitted, as was before observed, that there is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite cails and universal invitations; that God does invite mankind, without distinction, to return to him through the mediation of his Son, and promises pardon and acceptance to whomsoever

shall so return. There have been, and now are, many considerable writers, who are far from disowning the doctrine of particular redemption, (or, that the salvation of those who are saved is owing to an absolute, and consequently limited, design in the death of Christ,) who yet apprehend that a way is opened for sinners, without distinction, being invited to return to God, with the promise of free pardon on their return. And they suppose the above general expressions are intended to convey to us this idea. For my part, though I think with them in respect to the thing itself, yet I question if these general expressions are so to be understood. The terms ransom, propitiation, &c. appear, to me, to express more than this, and what is true only of those who are finally saved. To die for us appears, to me, to express the design, or intention, of the Redeemer. Christ's death effected a real redemption, through which we are justified. He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, and thereby secured the blessing to come upon us in due time.* Such a meaning, therefore, of the general expressions above-mentioned does not appear, to me, agreeable; much less can I accede to the sense put upon them by Philanthropos.

The rule of interpretation mentioned by P. (p. 76.) I approve. His sense of the passages referred to I apprehend to be "contradicted by other scriptures-contrary to the scope of the inspired writers-and what involves in it various absurdities."

The following observations are submitted to the judgment of the impartial reader.

I. It is the usual language of scripture, when speaking of the blessings of salvation extending to the Gentiles, to describe them in indefinite terms: 0 thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.- -The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.—And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LordAnd I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, &c.-Thy Maker is thy husband, (the Lord of hosts is his name ;) the

* Rom. iii. 24. Gal. iii. 13, 14.