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 uni versal 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 dis posed 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 Page 294 of this volume. 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 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.* not. * 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 3 D VOL. I. 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 de sign, 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 succoured 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. sinner justly condemned. But, admitting, for argument's sake, that the divine conduct is thereby cleared of the appearance of cruelty, the worst is, that this is all. His scheme barely goes to vindicate the Almighty from cruelty. It is justice only; there is no grace in it, nothing that God had a right to withhold. That which we have hitherto called the grace of the gospel, amounts, then, to no more than this: it bestows a benefit upon intelligent creatures, without which they could not possibly avoid being everlastingly miserable; and that upon this consideration, that "they did not bring this misery upon themselves, nor was it ever in their power to avoid it." (XIII. 82.) If the Divine Being will do this, he shall be complimented with the character of benevolent; (XIII. 80.) but, if not, he must be reproached, "as not loving, but hating a great part of his rational offspring." O, Mr. Taylor! does any one maintain that men, considered as the offspring of God, are the objects of his hatred ? Do not men sustain a more disagreeable character than this? That Deists and Socinians should write in this strain, is no wonder; but how came the language of infidelity to escape your pen? You will excuse this apostrophe, as I know you unite with me in a personal respect and esteem for my opponent, though you utterly disapprove of his Arminian tenets, which, under, the plausible pretext of extending the grace of the gospel, enervate, if not annihilate it, and leave little or nothing of GRACE, but the name. I am yours, &c. LETTER X. Dear Sir, MR. T. in his Ninth Letter, remarks on the evidence I of fered for an absolute determination in the death of Christ to save some of the human race. "This sentiment," Mr. T. says, "whether true or false, he does not wish to oppose." (XIII. 92.) He would not dispute, it seems, about Christ's dying with a view to the certain salvation of some, provided I would admit that, in another respect, he died for all mankind. Here, then, we seem to come nearer together than we sometimes are. The sense in which he pleads for the universal extent of Christ's death, is only to lay a foundation for this doctrine, that men, in general, may be saved, if they will; and this is what I admit I allow, that the death of Christ has opened a way, whereby God can, consistently with his justice, forgive any sinner whatever, who returns to him by Jesus Christ; and, if this may be called dying for men, which I shall not dispute, then it is admitted, that Christ died for all mankind. But I say, they will not come to Christ for life; and that, if Christ had died for no other end than to give them this offer, not one of them would have accepted it. I hold as much as Mr. T. holds to any good purpose. I admit of a way being opened for the salvation of sinners without distinction; and, what is more, that an effectual provision is made in the death of Christ, that that way shall not be unoccupied; that he shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. Without this provision, I suppose no one would ever have been saved; and the tendency of my reasoning is to prove, that all who are saved, are saved in consequence of it. Mr. T, I observe, is not disposed to controvert the doctrine of eternal, personal and unconditional election. (XIII. 100.) I am allowed, therefore, to take that doctrine, together with a special design in the death of Christ for the salvation of the elect, for granted. "This sentiment," Mr. T. says, "whether true or false, he does not wish to oppose." If any thing is necessary to be proved in this place, it is, that NONE but those whose salvation Christ absolutely designed in his death, are eventually saved; or, in other words, that WHOEVER are saved, are indebted to sovereign and efficacious grace for their salvation. Now let the reader turn to my Reply to Philanthropos, pp. 73, 74, and he will perceive, that several of those scrip tures which prove the doctrine of election, prove also, that none else are finally saved. The Apostles addressed all the * Page 301 of this volume. |