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 argument 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 letters 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.

B.

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 apostle'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, Į 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 i 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 o¡ távtes átélavov rendered THE all were dead; and then he must equally complain of our common translators, for rendering i vres 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.