works as well as fallen men; but Christ did not die for them: if therefore his death is to be considered as the criterion of divine goodness, and if the exer-cise of punitive justice is inconsistent with that attri-' bute, then suppose we were to admit that Christ died for all mankind, still the psalmist's assertion cannot be true, and the difficulty is never the nearer being removed.

That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is, whether he loves them all alike; and whether the excrcise of punitive justice be inconsistent with universal goodness? It is going great lengths for a weak worm to take upon him to insist that divine goodness must be exercised in such a particular instance, or it can have no existence at all. I dare not say there is no love, no goodness in all the providences of God towards mankind, nor yet in his giving them the means of grace and the invitations of the gospel, though he does not do all for them which he could do, to incline them to embrace them, and has neither purposed nor provided for such an end. On the contrary, I believe these things in themselves considered, to be instances of divine goodness, whatever the issue of them may be through men's depravity.

But if Christ did not die for all mankind, it is said. "his tender mercies cannot be exercised towards them, no not in the good things of this life, for these only increase their misery: nor in life itself-for

every moment of it must be a dreadfu! cursé.” (73.) But horrid as these consequences may appear, a denier of God's fore-knowledge would tell P. the same consequences followed upon his own scheme, and that in their full extent. He would say, "You pretend to maintain the tender mercies of God over all his works; and yet you suppose him perfectly to know before any of these works were brought into being, the part that every individual would act, and the consequent misery that would follow. He was sure that millions of the human race would so act, place them under what advantages he would, as that they would certainly involve themselves in such a condition, that it were better for them never to have been born. Ile kaew precisely who would come to such an end, as much as he will at the day of judgment. Why then did he bring them into existence? Surely they had better never have been born; or if they must be born, why were they not cut off from the womb, seeing he was sure that every moment of time they existed would only increase their misery? Is this goodness? Are these his tender mercies?"

I tremble while I write! For my part I feel difficulties attend every thing I think about. I feel myself a poor worm of the dust, whose understanding is infinitely too contracted to fathom the ways and works of God. I wish to tremble and adore; and take comfort in this, that what I know not now I shall know hereafter.

*Mark xiv. 21..

But it is no where expressly said that Christ died only for a part of mankind." (71.) It is expressly said that he gave himself that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people—that he laid down his life for the sheep-that he loved the church, and gave himself for it-that he died that he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad-and that those who are without fault before the throne of God, were brought from among men. But be it so, that we no where expressly read that Christ did not die to redeem all mankind; the scriptures do not so much deal in negatives as in positives. Their concern is not so much to inform mankind what is not done, as what is done. I know not that it is any where expressly said that all mankind are not to be baptized; yet I suppose P. well under, stands that part of our Lord's commission to be restrictive.

There was no necessity for the apostles to publish the divine purposes to mankind in their addresses to them. These were not designed 'as a rule of action either for the preachers, or the hearers. It was sufficient for them both, that Christ was ready to pardon and accept of any sinner whatever that should come unto him. It was equally sufficient on the other hand, if after people believed, they were taught those truths which relate to the purposes of grace on their behalf, with a view to cut off all glorying in themselves, and that they might learn to ascribe the whole difference between themselves and others to the mere sovereign grace of God. Hence it is, that the chief of those

scriptures which we conceive to hold forth a limitation of design in the death of Christ, or any other doctrine of discriminating grace, are such as were addressed to believers.

But the main stress of the argument seems to lie in the meaning of such general expressions as all menworld whole world, &c. If these are discussed, I suppose I shall be allowed to have replied to the substance of what P. has advanced, and that is all I can think of attending to.

It is admitted, as was before observed, that there is in the death of Christ a sufficient ground for indefinite calls, and universal invitations that God does invite mankind without distinction to return to him through the mediation of his Son, and promises pardon and acceptance to whomsoever shall so return, There have been, and now are many considerable writers, who are far from disowning the doctrine of particular redemption, or that the salvation of those who are saved is owing to an absolute and consequently limited design in the death of Christ; who yet apprehend that a way is opened for sinners without distinction being invited to return to God, with the promise of free pardon on their return. And they suppose the above general expressions are intended. to convey to us this idea. For my part, though I think with them in respect to the thing itself; yet I question if these general expressions are so to be un derstood. The terms ransom, propitiation, &c. appear to me to express more than this, and what is true only of those who are finally saved. To die for

us appears to me to express the design or intention of the Redeemer. Christ's death effected a real redemption, through which we are justified. He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; and thereby secured the blessing to come upon us in due time. Such a meaning therefore of the general expressions above mentioned does not appear to me agreeable; much less can I accede to the sense put upon them by Philanthropos.

The rule of interpretation mentioned by P. (76.) I approve. His sense of the passages referred to, I apprehend to be "contradicted by other scriptures— contrary to the scope of the inspired writers-and what involves in it various absurdities."

The following observations are submitted to the judgment of the impartial reader.

I. It is the usual language of scripture, when speaking of the blessings of salvation extending to the Gentiles, to describe it in indefinite terms. "O, thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, &c. Thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, the God of the

* Rom. iii, 24. Gal fii. 13, 14: