in a way of providence, p. 89.* It is such a reason, however, as Mr. T. has not attempted to answer.

LETTER XII.

Dear Sir,

MR. T. in his Nine Letters, offered arguments for the universal extent of Christ's death. He argued from the goodness of God over all his works, and from various passages of scripture which speak of the death of Christ in indefinite language. The principal of these passages and arguments I have considered in my Reply. Mr. T. in the Eleventh Letter of his last publication, defends his former arguments.

Before I enter on a discussion of particulars, I would observe, that although Mr. T. pleads for the universal extent of Christ's death, yet he pleads for it in no other sense than as laying a foundation for sinners, without distinction, being invited to return home to God by Jesus Christ, with the promise of forgiveness and acceptance on their return. He does not pretend, that there is provision made by the death of Christ for the certain salvation of all men. Now, the thing itself for which he pleads, is no more than I have admitted. It is true I have supposed, that this, being done for men in general, cannot, with propriety, be called dying for them. At the same time, I have allowed, that " many considerable writers, who are far from denying that the salvation of all the saved is owing to an absolute, and consequently limited, design in the death of Christ, have supposed that it might; and that the indefinite language of scripture, concerning the death of Christ, is intended to convey to us this idea." The thing itself I do not controvert; only it appeared, to me, that the terms ransom, propitiation, dying for ts, &c. were intended to convey something more than this,

Page 314, of this volume.

and what is true only of the finally saved. Now, admitting that I am mistaken in my supposition; admitting that the terms propitiation, ransom, &c. are applicable to mankind in general, and are designed to express that there is a way opened for sinners, without distinction, to return home to God, and be saved; nothing follows from it, but that I have misunderstood certain passages of scripture, by considering them as conveying an indefinite, but not a universal idea. In regard to the sentiment itself, I do not see that Mr. T. pleads for more than I have admitted, except in one instance: we agree that a way is opened, by the death of Christ, for the salvation of sinners, without distinction; and that any man may be saved, if he is willing to come to Christ, that he may have life. Here I stop; but Mr. T. goes a step farther, and maintains, that such a provision of grace is made by the death of Christ, that all men have power to be willing, if they will, but of this I am satisfied no meaning can be made.

I now proceed to particulars, by observing, that, whether my sense of the passages of scripture adduced by Mr. T. be just, or not, it does not appear, to me, that he has invalidated it. He argued, in general, from Psa. cxlv. 9. His tender mercies are over all his works. I answered, that the death of Christ was not the criterion of God's goodness; that fallen angels were a part of God's works, as well as fallen men. Mr. T. replies, by observing, that fallen angels were not here intended. (XIII. 106.) Then, it seems, Mr. T. can some times discern a restriction in the word all, though a universal term. Perhaps it may be sufficient to observe, that, whether the phrase all his works intends all fallen angels, or not, it intends more than that part of God's works for which Christ died. Is it not evident from the context, that it denotes God's providential goodness towards the whole animate creation P Is it not said of them, in verse 16, that their eyes wait on HIM; HE openeth his hand, and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?

But Mr. T. contends, that "there is no goodness, no mercy, no tender mercy, exercised toward a person who is placed in such a situation that he could not avoid sinning, and being damned, and whose damnation is necessarily increased by calls and commands to repent, and believe in Christ; when the

great God, whose commands these are, has provided no mercy for him, nor intends to give him the least assistance, though he knows the poor sinner cannot, nor ever possibly could, obey these calls and commands, any more than he can fly to the moon." (XIII. 106.) To this shocking representation I have only to say, This is not my hypothesis, nor any thing like it; and if Mr. T. thinks it is, it is time to give over controverting the matter with him. The whole passage is mere declamation, founded on the abuse of the terms cannot, could not, &c. If, instead of "cannot, and never could," he had said, will not, and never would, his account of the poor sinner's case would not have appeared so plausible: and yet this, he knows, is the whole of our meaning. Yes, "but if they could never will to comply," says Mr. T.' that amounts to the same thing:' (XIII. 57.) That is, unless they have the power of being willing, if they will. Of this I shall only say, that, when Mr. T. can make sense of it, it will be time enough to answer it.

6

What follows has much more of argument in it. "If the tender mercies of God are over all his works; and if no man can enjoy any mercy, but through Jesus Christ; is it not a natural and reasonable conclusion, that God has given his Son to die for all mankind?” (XIII. 105.) I must observe, however, by the way, that, "if no man can enjoy any mercy, but through Jesus Christ," I cannot but consider this as a full proof, that the whole race were unworthy of all mercy, and that God might, consistently with his justice and essential goodness, have withheld it from them, and treated them as worthy of death: for I have no idea that God needed the death of his Son to induce him to do that, which if he had not done, the omission of it would have exposed him to the charge of cruelty. If Mr. T. had always remembered this consideration, (which, I think, he cannot controvert,) it would have induced him to expunge a great deal of declamation in his letters. Having noted this, I confess I think that much mercy is exercised towards men in general, through Jesus Christ; and, consequently, that his death was productive of effects which terminate on all. Nor do I question, whether the opening of a way for the salvation of all who shall come unto God by him, and for men, without distinction, to be inYOL. I.

3 F

vited thus to come, is owing to the death of Christ; and, if this can be called dying for all mankind, I should admit, without hesitation, that he died for all. All I contend for is, that Christ, in his death, absolutely designed the salvation of all those who are finally saved; and that, besides the objects of such absolute design, such is the universal depravity of human nature, not one soul will ever believe, and be saved.

I am surprised at Mr. T.'s manner of treating the ar gument drawn from the objections that might be urged by a denier of God's foreknowledge; asking whether I would seriously avow them? (XIII. 107.) One would think he need not be told that I seriously disapprove that mode of reasoning, as well as of his; and only meant, through that, to show the tendency of his own. Such a way of arguing is fair and upright, and is used by writers of every description: it, therefore, ought not to have been called a finesse. Mr. T. in what he has said on this subject, as in many other places, gives sufficient proof of two things: 1. That he is combating a scheme which his opponent does not hold; 2. That to reason with him upon such terms as cannot, unable, or unavoidable, and the like, is to no purpose; for that he either cannot, or will not, understand our ideas concerning them.

Mr. T. now enters on a defence of his arguments from the terms all men, world, whole world, &c. (XIII. 110.) I apprehend, that, to understand these terms as denoting men universally, was contrary to other scriptures-to the scope of the inspired writers in the places where those expressions are found-and involved in it various absurdities. Mr. T. wishes I had given some instances of these contradictions and absurdities. This I certainly attempted in a great deal of what followed; but Mr. T. has never yet fairly refuted my remarks.

I pass over some less important matters, and observe what is advanced from 1 Tim. ii. 6. He gave himself a ransom for all. Mr. T. here complains, that I have not answered his reasons for understanding the term all universally; and I might as well complain of him, for his not considering my reasons for understanding it otherwise. I remember that he had argued, (IX. 79.) from the use of the term all in the context, and the cogency of the apostle's argument, ❝ Pray

for all, because Christ died for all." I cannot but think, with Mr. Robinson, that "this passage ought not to be urged in the Arminian controversy; for a part of this period fixes the sense to ranks, or degrees, of men. Pray for kings, and for all that are in authority. The meaning, then, is, pray for all ranks and degrees of men; for God will save some of all orders. Christ gave himself a ransom for persons of all degrees. The arguments I had advanced in my Reply,† to prove that this passage could not be understood of men universally, he has not answered, but runs off into a declamation concerning the secret and revealed will of God, the substance of which I had endeavoured to obviate in my Reply.‡

Little more, I think, need be said on 1 John ii. 1. What each of us has advanced upon it is before the public. My sense of the passage, which Mr. T. calls a strange notion," (XIII. 15.) surely is not more strange or singular than his notion of redemption. He must produce some better proof for another sense of the passage, than "appealing to the understanding and conscience of his friend."§

It is wonderful that Mr. T. should plead for the universal spread of the gospel in the times of the apostles, and for the faith of the Romans being celebrated in all parts. (XIII. 116.) In all parts of the Roman empire it might, and in some other nations; but can any man persuade himself that it was spoken of at Mexico or Otaheite ?

Mr. T. thinks, that the whole earth (Isa. liv. 5.) is to be understood universally, and that God is there called the God of the whole earth, as a creator, supporter, and judge, in distinction from the tender character of a husband. But, as he is called both the maker and the husband of the church there addressed; so, it seems very evident, he is described towards

*Notes upon Claude, Vol. II. pp. 269, 270.

† Pages 308, 309, of this volume.

Pages 319-321, of this volume. Note.

§ It may not be inexpedient to inform some readers, that Mr. T.'s let ters were written to an old and intimate friend of his own, who entirely agrees with him in sentiment, and at whose request, Mr. T. first commenced this controversy; though, as that gentleman had some slight acquaintance with Mr. Fuller, Mr. T. all along, speaks to him of Mr. F. as the friend of his correspondent.

R.