specting its being embraced, they are the diversified language of the moral law, which obliges men, as P. himself allows, to "embrace whatever God reveals.” (p. 89.) Sometimes, the word gospel is used in a large sense, for the whole of the Christian dispensation, as contained in the New-Testament, or the whole of that religion taught by Christ and his apostles, whether doctrinal or practical. In this use of the word, we sometimes speak of the precepts of the gospel. But, when the term gospel is used in a strict sense, it denotes merely the good news proclaimed to lost sinners through the mediation of Christ. In this view, it stands opposed to the moral law, and, in itself, contains no injunctions at all. If the gospel were a new system of government taking place of the moral law, one should think there would be no farther need of the latter; whereas Christ, in his sermon on the mount, maintained its perpetuity, and largely explained and enforced its precepts. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. SECTION IV. ON THE DEATH OF CHRIST. THE extent of Christ's death is well known to have been a matter of great controversy. For my part, I cannot pretend to so much reading upon the subject, as to be fully ac quainted with the arguments used on either side. If I write any thing about it, it will be a few plain thoughts, chiefly the result of reading the sacred scriptures. I think no one can imagine, that I am under any obligation, from the laws of controversy, to follow P. into a long and laboured defence of the limited extent of Christ's death. All that can be reasonably thought incumbent upon me is, to treat of it so far as respects its consistency or inconsistency with in definite invitations. On this score, I might very well be excused from entering upon any defence of the subject itself, or answering the arguments advanced for the contrary, Whatever notice is taken of either, will be rather in compliance with what has been done by my opponent, than in conformity to the laws of disputation. I suppose P. is not ignorant, that Calvinists in general have considered the particularity of redemption as consisting, not in the degree of Christ's sufferings, (as though he must have suffered more, if more had been finally saved,) or in any insufficiency that attended them, but in the sovereign purpose and design of the Father and the Son, whereby they were constituted or appointed the price of redemption, the objects of that redemption ascertained, and the ends to be answered by the whole transaction determined. They suppose the sufferings of Christ, in themselves considered, are of infinite value, sufficient to have saved all the world, and a thousand worlds, if it had pleased God to have constituted them the price of their redemption, and to have made them effectual to that end, Farther; whatever difficulties there may appear in these subjects, they, in general, suppose that there is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls and universal invitations; and that there is no mockery, or insincerity, in the Ho ly One in any one of these things.* These views of the subject accord with my own. I know : "The obedience and sufferings of Christ," says Witsius, "considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of the person, of that value as to have been sufficient for redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them." And again, "The obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth, that all, without exception, who come to him, may find perfect salvation in him and it was the will of God that this truth should, without distinction, be proposed both to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to perish: with a charge not to neglect so great salvation, but to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul; and with a most sincere declaration, that all who come to him shall find salvation in him. John vi. 40." Economy, Vol. I. Chap. IX. To the same purpose speaks Peter Du Moulin, in his Anatomy of Arminianism, Chap. XXVII. § 9. And Dr. Owen, in his Death of Death, Book IV. Chap. I. also in his Display of Arminianism, Chap. IX. not but that there is the same objective fulness and sufficiency in the obedience and sufferings of Christ, for the salvation of sinners, as there is in the power of the Holy Spirit for their renovation: both are infinite; yet both are applied under the direction of infinite wisdom and uncontrollable sovereignty. It is allowed, 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. If we were to suppose, for argument's sake, that all the inhabitants of the globe should thus return, it is supposed not one soul need be sent away, for want of a sufficiency in Christ's death to render his pardon and acceptance consistent with the rights of justice. But, great and necessary as this mercy is, if nothing more than this had been done, not one of the human race had ever been saved. It is necessary to our salvation, that a way and an highway to God should be opened; Christ is such a way, and is as free for any sinner to walk in, as any highway whatever from one place to another; but, considering the depravity of human nature, it is equally necessary that some effectual provision should be made for our walking in that way.* We conceive, that the Lord Jesus Christ made such a provision by his death, thereby procuring the certain bestowment of faith, as well as all other spiritual blessings which follow upon it; that, in regard of all the sons who are finally brought to glory, he was the surety, or captain, of their salvation; that their salvation was, properly speaking, the end, or design, of his death. And herein, we suppose, consists the particularity of redemption. I think I might reduce all that is necessary to be said upon this subject to two questions-First: Had our Lord Jesus Christ any absolute determination, in his death, to save any of the human race? Secondly: Supposing such a determination to exist concerning some, which does not exist concerning others, is this consistent with indefinite calls and universal invitations? The discussion of these two questions will contain the substance of what I shall advance upon the subject; but, I use the metaphor of a way, the rather because it conveys an idea sufficiently clear; and is frequently applied to Christ in the scriptures. John xiv. 4-6. Isa. xxxv. 8, Jer. vi. 16. as pretty much is required to be said, I shall subdivide the whole into four lesser sections. § 1. CONTAINING A DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER OUR LORD JESUs Christ had ANY ABSOLUTE deTERMINATION IN HIS DEATH TO SAVE ANY OF THE HUMAN RACE? If the affirmative of this question be proved; if it be shown that Christ had such an absolute purpose in his death; the limited extent of that purpose must follow of course. The reason is plain: an absolute purpose must be effectual. If it extended to all mankind, all mankind would certainly be saved. Unless, therefore, we will maintain the final salvation of all mankind, we must either suppose a limitation to the absolute determination of Christ to save, or deny any such determination to exist. The scheme of P. concurs with the latter, supposing that by the death of Christ a mere conditional provision of redemption is made for all mankind. I own I think otherwise; some of the reasons for which are as follows: I. The promises made to Christ of the certain efficacy of his death. One of our grand objections to the scheme of P. is, that, in proportion as he extends the objects for whom Christ died beyond those who are actually saved, he diminishes the efficacy of his death, and renders all the promises concerning it of no account. His scheme, instead of making redemption universal, supposes that Christ's death did not properly redeem any man, nor render the salvation of any man a matter of certainty. It only procured an offer of redemption and reconciliation to mankind in general. We apprehend this is diminishing the efficacy of Christ's death, without answering any valuable end. Nor is this all: such an hypothesis appears, to us, utterly inconsistent with all those scriptures where God the Father is represented as promising his Son a reward for his sufferings in the salvation of poor sinners. God the Father engaged, saying, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning; thou hast (or shalt have) the dew of thy youth. Yes: he engaged that he should see his seed; that the pleasure of Jehovah should prosper in his hand; that he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied; and by his knowledge, it was added, shall my righteous servant justify many, FOR he shall bear their iniquities. It was promised to Christ, as the reward of his sufferings, that kings should see, and arise: princes also, it was added, shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful; and the Holy One of Israel shall choose thee: thus saith JEHOVAH, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people; to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth, and to them that sit in darkness, Show yourselves.-Behold, these shall come from far; and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the land of Sinim!* But what security, I ask, was there for the fulfilment of these promises, but upon the supposition of the certain salvation of some of the human race? How could it be certain that Christ should justify many, if there was no effectual provision made that any should know and believe in him? and what propriety was there in assigning his bearing their iniquities as his REASON and EVIDENCE of it, if there is no necessary connexion between our iniquities being borne away, and our persons being justified? II. The characters under which Christ died. He laid down his life as a shepherd; and for whom should we expect him to die in that character? For the sheep, no doubt. So the scriptures inform us: The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Ilay down my life for the sheep. Those for whom Christ laid down his life are represented as being his sheep, prior to their coming to the fold. These, saith the blessed Redeemer, I must bring; and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. As sheep are committed into the hands of a shepherd, and as he becomes responsible for their preservation or restoration, so Christ is represented as the great shepherd of the sheep, whose blood was shed by covenant; and who, by fulfilling that covenant, was entitled to a discharge, which, as the representative of those for whom he died, he enjoyed in his resurrection from the dead.† Psa. cx. 3. Isa. liii. 10, 11. xlix. 7-9. 12. |