which the scriptures he has cited undoubtedly prove: but that sinners perish merely for rejecting the gospel, and not for transgressing the law, wants proof. Perhaps it might be much easier proved, that men will not be punished for rejecting the gospel, any farther than as such rejection involves in it a transgression of the law. Mr. T. complains (XIII. 77.) of my supposing, that he makes the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral law, and is persuaded I had no authority for such a supposition. And yet, without this supposition, I do not see the force of what he labours to illustrate and establish, as above. If Mr. T. here means any thing different from what I admit, it must be to maintain, that the death of Christ has, in such sort, atoned for the sins of the whole world, as that no man shall be finally condemned for his breaking the moral law, but merely for the sin of unbelief. If this is not his meaning, I ask his pardon for misunderstanding him. If it is, this is, to all intents and purposes, making the gospel a new system of government, taking place of the moral

law.

It may, in a sense, be said of a rebel, who refuses to lay down his arms and submit to mercy, (which is a case more in point than that of a condemned criminal in the hands of justice,) that, when he comes to be punished, he will die because he refused the king's pardon; but it is easy to see, that the word because is, in this connexion, used improperly. It does not mean, that the refusal of mercy is the crime, and the only crime, for which he suffers; no, this is not the direct or procuring, so much as the occasional, cause of his punishment. REBELLION is that for which he suffers; and his refusal of mercy is no farther a procuring cause of it, than as it is a perseverance in rebellion, and, as it were, the completion of it. I am, &c.

1

LETTER IX.

Dear Sir,

THE last article in debate between myself and Mr. Taylor, concerns the extent of Christ's death. On this subject I stated my own views by way of explanation; offered evidence that Christ, in his vicarious sufferings and death, had an absolute determination to save some of the human race; noticed Mr. T.'s arguments; endeavoured to show the consistency of a limitation of design in the death of Christ with the indefinite call of the gospel, &c. and concluded with some general reflections upon the whole. On these subjects Mr. T. has followed me; and I shall attempt to follow him, with a few additional remarks.

In stating my sense of the limited extent of Christ's death, I admitted that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, had the race of mankind, or the multitude of their offences, been a thousand times more numerous than they are, if it had pleased God to render them effectual to that end. I do not consider the necessity of an atonement as arising from the number of sins, but from the nature of them. As the same sun which is necessary to enlighten the present inhabitants of the earth, is sufficient to enlighten many millions more; and as the same perfect obedience of Christ, which was necessary for the justification of one sinner, is sufficient to justify the millions that are saved; so, I apprehend, the same infinite atonement would have been necessary for the salvation of one soul, consistently with justice, as for the salvation of a world.

I admit that "the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can forgive any sinner whatever, who returns to him by Jesus Christ ;" and that, in perfect consistency with the honour of the supreme Lawgiver, and the general good of his extensive empire. "If we were to suppose, for argument's sake, that all the inhabitants of the globe should thus return," I do not conceive that "one soul need be sent away for want of a sufficiency in the death of Christ to render their pardon

and acceptance consistent with the rights of justice.” (Reply, p. 64.*) All the limitation I maintain in the death of Christ arises from pure sovereignty: it is a limitation of design.

Now, seeing the above is conceded, whence arises the propriety of all those arguments in Mr. T.'s piece, which proceed upon the supposition of the contrary? The latter part of his Ninth letter, which is taken up in exposing the consequences of maintaining an indefinite invitation without a universal provision, overlooks the above concessions. I have admitted the necessity of a universal provision, as a ground of invitation; and that, in two respects:-1. A provision of pardon in behalf of all those who shall believe in Christ; 2. A provision of means and motives to induce them to believe. And if no more than this were meant by the term provision, I should not object to it. And if by Christ's dying for the whole world were meant no more than this, I should not wish to have any dispute about it. Now, if Mr. T. had been disposed to attend to things, and not merely to words, and to keep to the point in hand, he should have proved, that this provision, which I admitted, was insufficient to render the invitations of the gospel consistent, and should have pointed out, wherein the provision for which he pleads has the advantage of it. Mr. T. was reminded of this in my Reply, pp. 101, 102.† but I do not recollect that he has taken any notice of it.

I do not see, I confess, but that the parable of the marriage feast, Matt. xxii. 4, 5. is as consistent with my hypothesis, as with that of Mr. T. (XIII. 134.) I never supposed but that all things were ready; or that even those who made light of it, if they had come in God's way, would have been disappointed. All I suppose is, that provision was not made effectually to persuade every one to embrace it; and that without such effectual persuasion, no one ever did, or will, embrace God's way of salvation.

Mr. T. proceeds to draw some conclusions which he thinks very unfavourable to my sentiments. "We have no authority," says he, " on this scheme, to ascribe the limitation to any cause but want of love." This, he apprehends, is high

ly derogatory to the honour of God; especially as love is his darling attribute. (XIII. 80.) But all this reasoning proceeds upon the supposition that God must be accused of want of love to his rebellious creatures, unless he does, for their salvation, all that he could do consistently with justice. Now, let it be observed, Mr. T. sometimes tells us, that he does not oppose the doctrine of an absolute determination for the salvation of some of the human race. (XIII. 92.) But, if he admit this as consistent with what he has advanced, then he must admit that God could have actually saved the whole world in the same absolute way, and not have suffered any of the human race to perish; and all this, too, in consistency with justice. And yet he does not. What then? According to Mr. T. all must be ascribed to want of love. Farther: Mr. T. I should think, will not deny that God could have spread the gospel, and that consistently both with his own justice, and with man's free agency, all over the earth, and at every period of time since the fall of man; and yet he has not. Yea, before the coming of his Son, he suffered all nations but one, for many ages, to walk in their own ways; this, according to Mr. T.'s reasonings, must all be ascribed to want of love, and so lie as a reproach upon God's character.*

* An objection much like the above was once urged by Mr. Wesley against Mr. Hervey.-"Will God," said Mr. W "deny what is necessary for the present comfort and final acceptance of any one soul that he has made? Would you deny it to any, if it were in your power ?"-To which the ingenious Mr. Hervey replied, "To show the error of such a sentiment, and the fallacy of such reasoning, I shall just mention a recent melancholy fact: News is brought, that the Prince George man of war, Admiral Broderick's own ship, is burnt and sunk, and above four hundred souls, that were on board, are perished. Six hours the flames prevailed; while every means were used to preserve the ship and crew; but all to no purpose. In the mean time, shrieks and groans, bitter moanings and piercing cries, were heard from every quarter. Raving, despair, and even madness, presented themselves in a variety of forms. Some ran to and fro, distracted with terror, not knowing what they did, or what they should do. Others jumped overboard from all parts; and to avoid the pursuit of one death, leaped into the jaws of another. Those unhappy wretches who could not swim, were obliged to remain upon the wreck, though flakes of fire fell on their bodies. Soon the masts went away, and killed numbers. Those who were not killed thought themselves happy to get upon the floating timber. Nor yet

Mr.T.'s own scheme, as well as mine, supposes, that God does not do all that for some men which he could, and which

is necessary to their salvation. He supposes, that if what was done for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum without effect, had been done for Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, it would have been effectual. (XIII. 25.) And yet this was not done. To what is this to be imputed? Surely God could have sent the gospel to the one, as well as to the other. I see not what cause Mr. T. will find to impute this to, but what he calls a want of love.

But Mr. T. suggests, that the conduct of our blessed Saviour, according to my scheme, would resemble that of a person, who should invite another to an entertainment, without a design that he should partake of it. (XIII. 84.) But, if a comparison must be made, ought it not rather to be with a person who sincerely invites his neighbours to a plentiful banquet, and never designed any other but that whoever comes shall be entertained with a hearty welcome; but did not design, after all fair means were used, and repeated insults received, to do all that, perhaps, he could, to overcome their pride and prejudice, and so bring them to the entertainment. If this would destroy the sincerity of the invitation, so would foreknowledge; and it might as plausibly be objected, How can any being act sincerely in inviting men to partake of that which he knows, at the same time, they never will enjoy?

Mr. T.'s scheme appears, to him, to have many advantages; particularly he thinks it is consistent with the general tenor of scripture; clears the conduct of the Father of mercies from the appearance of cruelty; and leaves the obdurate

were they safe; for, the fire having communicated itself to the guns, which were loaded and shotted, they swept multitudes from this their last refuge. What say you, Sir, to this dismal narrative? Does not your heart bleed? Would you have stood by, and denied your succour, if it had been in your power to help? Yet the Lord saw this extreme distress. He heard their piteous moans. He was able to save them, yet withdrew his assistance. Now, because you would gladly have suc coured them, if you could, and God Almighty could, but would not send them aid; will you, therefore, conclude that you are above your Lord? and that your loving-kindness is greater than his? I will not offer to charge any such consequence upon you. I am persuaded you abhor the thought." Letters to Mr. Wesley, pp. 288, 289.