1 Tim. ii. 6; and "tasted death for every man," Heb. ii. 9. See also Tit. ii, 13, 14; 2 Cor.

v. 15.

i

On the other hand, where is it ever affirmed in Scripture, that Christ died for a few; or even negatively, that he did not die for all?

In one or

two passages, indeed, Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28; Rom. v. 19; and Heb. ix. 28; our Lord is spoken of as having died for many: but let it here be observed, that ALL are MANY; and in the passage of Rom. v. 19, "As by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;" the word many must needs mean "all" in the first clause; and, therefore, has the same meaning in the second. Or again, these passages and the others just now cited, are reconcilable by affirming that Christ died for all in regard to extension of kindness, but for many, inasmuch as his death would be effectual only to "as many as would believe and obey the Gospel."

The same distinction between the death of

Christ " intentionally," and " eventually," is to be applied to John, x. 15; xiii. 13, 14; and Ephes. ii. 26; where he is said to have laid down his life for his friends, for his sheep, for his church.

But Christ is the propitiation for the WHOLE WORLD, 1 John, ii. 2; even of the WICKED, who deny the Lord that bought THEM, 2 Peter, ii. 1.

And in the many passages where our Lord is denominated the Saviour of "the world," John, i. 29; vi. 33, 51; 1 John, iv. 14; John, iii. 16, 17; xii. 47; 2 Cor. v. 19; the world must signify the world generally, or in a bad sense, as is its meaning in John, i. 10; 1 John, iii. 1; John, xv. 18, 19; xvi. 33; xvii. 14; 1 John, iii. 13; iv. 5; John, viii. 23; xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 8, 11; viii. 23; xv. 19; xvii. 16; 1 John, v. 19; John, xiv. 17.

The Calvinist is begging a great deal too much, when he would have the world to signify, now the whole, and now a part, just as it may happen to suit his monstrous hypothesis.

But if the elect be the smaller, and a very small, part of the world, according to Matt. vii. 14, and xx. 16, where they are called FEW, God might be said, not to have LOVED the WORLD, John, iii. 16; and sent his Son, that it might be saved, v. 17; but to have hated it, and sent his Son to condemn it. For so in common life we speak of any assembly: "the House of Commons voted supplies," means, the majority of the House of Commons.

But, indeed, when Christ is said to have died for the sins of the world, to provide a remedy for a certain evil; the universal nature of the evil implies the universal nature of the remedy. Adam is at the head of one covenant, Christ the head of the other. The evils introduced by Adam, were death and condemnation; but with respect to DEATH, we know that the remedy is as extensive

as the evil: for, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Does not analogy direct the same co-extensiveness to apply to condemnation, the other evil? Excepting the universal taint of corruption (and for this, spiritual influence is provided, sufficient to leave an exercise for probationary creatures), ALL men must be reinstated by the second Adam, in the situation from which all men were degraded by the first *. Again, we read, " And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" 1 Cor. viii. 11. Here, then, we perceive

who do perish. Where,

that Christ died for some then, is the limitation? He died for all who perish. So likewise, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Jews are warned not to be guilty of counting the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb. x. 26, 27; for

And this view is confirmed by a multiplicity of texts: Gen. xviii. 18, and xxii. 18; Isa. lii. 10; liii. 6; Luke, ii. 10, 30, 31; John, i. 29; xii. 32; i. 9; iv. 42; ii. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; Tit. ii. 11; Revel. xxii. 17 in all which passages the ransom is declared to be universal. See also the reasoning in Rom. v. 19, 19. Nay, in the following verse, 20, we learn, that "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound;" but sin was universal: to suit the Calvinian system, then, the words should have run, "Where sin abounded, grace did much LESS abound."

That the offer of salvation was general to Jews and Gentiles, see Tomline's Refutat. ch. iv.; Rom. i. 16, &c. That the benefits of Christ's death were extended even retrospectively, we learn from Heb. xi. 4, 5; and Matt. viii. 11.

then there would remain no MORE sacrifice for sin. There was, then, sacrifice for THEIR Sin, and there was danger of their neglecting and losing it; i. e. of becoming reprobate, or castaway: Christ, therefore, was a sacrifice for the reprobate.

If ALL MEN were to believe, as they мIGHT, in Christ, John, i. 7; and if "he that believeth not, is condemned," John, iii. 18; viii. 24; i. 36; he died for as many as were exhorted to believe; that is, for all men.

Why is God called a God rich in mercy, if he was sparing of his mercies to the greater part of mankind? Why should Christ say to some, "How often would I have gathered you as a hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" Matt. xxiii. 37; John, v. 40. "Why does he marvel at the unbelief of the people ?" Mark, vi. 6: if he himself had predetermined that the belief of those whom he addressed should be impossible? "God is love," Heb. iv. 8. But how could he be so, if he hated, from all eternity, the greater portion of mankind? And, in short, if Christ has only died for some, the numerous passages, exhorting all indiscriminately to repentance, represent God as so full of insincerity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy, that we could place no firm reliance on any part of his revealed word. We are commanded to make prayers and supplications for all men, 1 Tim. ii. 1. But, on the Calvinistic hypothesis, our prayers for many are

wasted breath; and God has commanded an unmeaning service. The doctrine of partial redemption shakes the general obligation to love Godthe best principle of duty; partly by diminishing the amiableness of his character, and partly by exciting a doubt as to our personal reprobation. No; I could not love the Being, I could not willingly serve the Being, who had perchance predamned me from all eternity.

In the same manner, this dark, unnatural doctrine strikes at the root of thanksgiving, praise, and imitation of the divine nature.

Again, penitent sinners, if redemption be partial, will ever find their hope clouded by a fear, lest Christ should not have died to render their penitence acceptable; and hence, perhaps, many of those religious glooms and derangements so unhappily frequent in our mad-houses*.

Is it wise, is it just, is it merciful, first to make a condition, unavoidable to some, and impracticable to others; and then to reward the former for what they could not shun, and to punish the latter for what they did not choose? "God is love," Heb. iv. 8. Now, what is love? Let the Apostle answer: "Whoso seeth his brother have need, and refuseth compassion, how dwelleth love in him?" 1 John, iii. 17. Yet God sees a great portion of mankind have need of grace, and refuses compassion. God, then, is not love, if he be the God of Calvinism, Mic. vii. 18; Acts, x. 35. Does God stint his general bounties of light, health, seasons, to any particular classes of men? What shall we say, then is he liberal in the blessings of nature, and a niggard only of his grace?