the whole earth. He who had heretofore been called the Holy One of Israel, shall now be called the God of the whole earth. See Henry's exposition.

The term whole, in Matt. xiii. 33. undoubtedly is to be understood restrictively; for, though the gospel will spread over all nations, before the end of the world, yet not so as to renew every individual in them, much less every individual that has existed at every period. (XIII. 117.)

Mr. T. is astonished to find me asserting, that he himself does not understand the terms whole world, in 1 John ii. 2, and the same terms, in chap. v. 19. in the same sense, seeing he has declared the contrary. (XIII. 118.) Perhaps I had better have said, Mr. T. cannot, upon due consideration, understand those terms as parallel; seeing he considers them, in the first, as meaning all the individuals in the world that ever did, or shall, exist, except the persons from whom they are there distinguished; whereas he cannot pretend that the last mean any more than the world of ungodly men, who at that time existed.

Another passage that has been considered by both of us, is 2 Cor. v. 15. If one died for all, then were all dead, &c. (XIII. 118.) Mr. T. here complains, as he does in other places, of my not drawing my conclusions in form. I thought the conclusions I meant to draw were obvious to every attentive reader, and omitted drawing them out at length, for the sake of brevity. I observed, 1. That the context speaks of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, being interested in Christ. I supposed, therefore, it might be understood of men of all nations, in distinction from its being confined to the Jews. 2. That the apostle meant to affirm, not that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom Christ died. In proof of this, I argued from the apos, tle's describing the terrors of divine vengeance to which they were subject; and from the phraseology of verse 14. If one died for all, then were THEY all dead. For this, Mr. T. has corrected me, charging me with misquoting the scripture. The words of the apostle are, ὅτι εἰ εἰς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανον, ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον. Not having had those advantages for literary improvement which I should have been glad to enjoy, I was not forward, by a formal criticism, to tell my readers

that I had acquired some small acquaintance with the original language, so as to be able to judge of the propriety of a translation; but I knew that the article here used, has been thought, by very competent judges,* to be anaphorical, or relative and that the passage should be read, If one for all died, then THEY all, or THOSE all, were dead. Nothing can be more exact than this translation, unless Mr. T. would insist on having οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον rendered THE all were dead; and then he must equally complain of our common translators, for rendering of Cres in the next verse, they who live, instead of THE living. But would not Mr. T. be ashamed to insinuate, on this account, to "the inattentive reader," that they have "interlined and abused" the original language of scripture. I am so well assured of Mr. T.'s learning, that I am hardly able to consider his "hope" that I quoted the passage wrong" through mistake," as any other than "a finesse." 3. I observed, on the distributive they who, that my hypothesis, though it supposes that all for whom Christ died shall finally live, yet does not suppose that they all live at present. Here, I think, Mr. T. certainly misunderstands me. His original argument is this: by the language of the text it appears that Christ died for more than actually live. My answer is, that, upon my hypothesis, Christ died for more than actually live at any period of time; part of them being, at every period, in a state of unregeneracy.

I have gone over the passages in debate between us, merely to prove, that, whether my sense of those passages be just, or not, Mr. T. has not invalidated it. At the same time, I cannot forbear repeating, that, even allowing Mr. T. to have proved the universal extent of Christ's death in the most forcible manner, he has not proved that any thing more is done towards the salvation of men in general, than what I admit, or that renders the salvation of one individual more probable.

I have, all along, supposed, that there is that done for them by Christ, which renders their salvation no otherwise impossible, nor their destruction unavoidable, than as it is rendered so by their own temper of mind: no other obstacle could pre

* Beza, Piscator, and Gill. See Gill's Cause of God and Truth. Part I. No. XXXIX.

vent their believing to the saving of their souls, but an evil heart, obstinately persisting in its departure from the living God.

Mr. T. sums up his evidence, on this subject, in five topics of argument. The silence of scripture on the limited extent of Christ's death; the willingness of the blessed God that all should turn, and live; those who are not saved being more miserable than if Christ had not died; the unlimited expressions used concerning the death of Christ; and such passages as distinguish between those for whom he died, and those who are finally saved. (XIII. 120.)

With regard to the first, the Bible is not silent concerning a special design in the death of Christ, as in all the other works of God, in behalf of all who are finally saved. I hope this has been proved in Letters X. and XI. and in my Reply, pp. 66-76.* It is true, there are no such express words, that I know of, in the Bible; but if the idea is there conveyed, that is sufficient. Mr. T. says, indeed that, "if a doctrine is not mentioned in scripture, there is reason to believe that doctrine is not true: that we admit this on all other subjects, and ought to admit it on this." But so far is this from being fact, that we never find express mention of a divine providence, and yet we all allow the scripture to be full of it. Reasoning from positive institutions to doctrines, as Mr. T. has done, (XIII. 109.) is very unfair.

Mr. T.'s second topic of argument is taken from the universality of divine love to man, and the willingness of the blessed God that all should turn, and live. It is admitted, that God's love to man is, in one sense, universal. He bears good will towards them, as the work of his hands; but it does not follow from thence, that he must do all that he could do for their salvation. If God loves all mankind, he must have loved the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, as well as those of Chorazin and Bethsaida: but though, as Mr. T. thinks, (XIII. 25.) if the same things which were done for the latter without effect, had been done for the former, they would have been effectual; yet they were not done. As to God's willingness that all should turn, and live, God's will, as

Pages 295-303 of this volume.

has been observed, sometimes expresses what he approves, and sometimes what he purposes.* God wills, approves, and desires a sinner's turning unto him. It is that which, through the whole Bible, is required of him; and whosoever thus returns shall live. I may add, God is willing to receive and forgive every sinner that returns to him through Jesus Christ. He desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he would repent, and live. But he has not purposed the salvation of every sinner, or to incline his heart to embrace the salvation exhibited in the gospel. In this sense, the salvation of some is neither desired nor designed: if it were, it would be effected; for his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleasure.- -Whatsoever his soul desireth, even that he doeth. Isa. xlvi. 10. Job xxiii. 13. "But can God," says Mr. T. " will that which he knows to be impossible? which never was possible? which none could make possible, besides himself? which he was never willing to make possible ?" (XIII. 120.) If by impossible, Mr. T. means, that which is naturally impossible, it is granted he cannot. But that he wills what is morally impossible, Mr. T. himself must allow. God wills that Christians should be holy, as he himself is holy; and that, in the present life, or he would not have enjoined it upon them. 1 Peter iv. 16. Matt. v. 48. But Mr. T. does not pretend that this is possible, even by the assistance of divine grace. (XIII. 61.)

Mr. T.'s third topic of argument is thus expressed: "All who are not saved will be more miserable than if Christ had never died for sinners. If Christ did not die for them, they cannot, nor ever could, possibly avoid this. This cannot be reconciled to the scripture account of divine justice and goodness." (XIII. 120.) Answer, 1. This can only be said of those who have heard the gospel, and rejected it, and not of "all who are not saved," that they will be more miserable than if Christ had never died. Supposing this argument, therefore, to be valid, it will not prove, that Christ, in laying down his life designed the salvation of all men universally, but merely of those to whom the gospel is exhibited. 2. It is no way inconsistent with the justice or goodness of God to suffer

Pages 319-321 of this volume. Note.

good to be the occasion of evil. The gospel was preached to the unbelieving Jews, even after it was said of them, Hearing they shall hear, and not understand; and seeing they shall see, and not perceive; and became the occasion of much sin and misery. Matt. xiii. 14. 'But they might have embraced the gospel when it was first preached to them, if they would.' True: and at last, too; or it had been absurd to have preached it to them. There was nothing that hindered their believing, first or last, but their own wicked hearts. On that account, they could not believe. John xii. 39. yet Christ, at the very time this was declared, exhorted them, while they had light, to believe in the light, that they might be the children of light ; (ver. 36.) and their contempt of his counsel aggravated their misery.

Mr. T.'s fourth topic of argument is taken from the “expressions of scripture, where the extent of Christ's death is directly mentioned, being all universal and unlimited." Something has been said, in the Reply to Philanthropos,* which accounts for these indefinite modes of speech; something too, which Mr. T. I think, has not sufficiently answered. But, suppose it were allowed, as has been said before, that the language of scripture, taken in its most literal and plain meaning, proves Christ, in some sense, to have died for all mankind; still, if we will give fair scope to other parts of scripture, it is evident, that, in some sense, he died only for a part. These scriptures have been considered in Letter X. and in the Reply to Philanthropos, pp. 66-76.†

Lastly, Mr. T. observes, that "several passages evidently distinguish between those for whom Christ died, and those who will be finally saved. (XIII. 121.) The passages to which he refers are John iii. 16. God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. and Matt. xxii. 1-11. concerning the marriage-feast, and provision being made for those who did not come; with John vi. 32. My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven; which, as he observes, was spoken to the Jews in general, without restriction. (IX. 83.)