TEN
LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO THE
IJV REFERENCE
to III9
SCRIPTURAL VIEW
OF TllB
ATONEMENT.
JStj his Friend and Fellow Lobonrer in (lit .
Gospel of Christ♦
JESSE MERCER.
PRINTED AT THE NEWS OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, WILKES COUNTV
GEORGIA.
1830,
5?
THE
APOLOGY,
The following letters have not been written from a spirit of con¬
troversy. The writer deeply deprecates religious controversies,
^specially among the members of the same community. He has
been led to this work, from circumstances, which seemed to call
on him, for some thing of the kind,, as well in his own, as in the de-
*fence of truth. The circumstances are these : a controversy, ra¬
ther ofa heated character, on the doctrine ofatonement, had been
going on, for some time, among the ministers of his denomination,
in some of the western counties of this state; and when he was at
the Ocmulgee Association last fall, he was requested to deliver a
discourse on the atonement; but, he declined, alleging that lie
lived among a peaceful people, where no siith controversy ran
ged, and therefore, w as not prepared to do Justice to a contro¬
versial subject, of such importance, among a people, the tone of
.ivhose feelings, Was raised as high as was theirs: and so preach*
ed a practical discourse, Soon»after he attended the Flint river
Association, where the solicitations were pressed, by sundry,
of his old brethren and friends, to w hich he yielded, so far as to
treat on the subject lightly, not so much in the spirit of control
versy, as of investigation and conciliation.
But this course w as construed, rather into evidence of his de¬
fection, and soon it was reported, through that section, that he
Jiad apostitised from the faith of his denomination; and was, at
least, in connection with Cyrus White and 13. Jl. Willson (who
were accused of propegating <irminian sentiments) and even of
being their abettor* He received, a few months after, a letter
from a venerable Minister of that country, in which is the fol¬
lowing. "You know brother Mercer, that Willson frequently
£«j&crted in the association tjjat, tic, had npt departed from the
faith—but believe*! as you did. If this be the truth, then 'thelfi-
ierence is fair, when we say, you believe as Willson does : and
Vve are well assured here that Willson belieyes as "White doesj
and White's faith we have in print." This printed faith of Mr,
"W. I had not then read, but supposed it to be Some w hat on
Fuller's scheme of the atonement, as Mr. W. had always pro-,
jfessed to be in sentiment with Mr. F, But my correspondent
continues thus, "IJpon the whole brother Mercer, I cannot feel
my jmind fully discharged without letting you know, that you pre
strongly and generally suspected here, of drinking out of Fuller s
spring with White and Willson." Thus it will appear, that not
the writer alone was evil reported of, but the excellent Mr. F,
too, was represented as a writer, whose works form a corrupt
spring. These insinuations, he >vas assured, were formed only
in surmise, arising from the want of better information, anc|
those exaggerated.feelings, which are always the legitimate off*
spring of strong controversies. On reading Mr, White's views
of the atonement, and finding them far different from w hat he had
Anticipated, and from what he conceived to be correfct; he
thought it proper to write the following letters* not only to shew
that he was not in sentiments w ith Mr. W. as had been .sugges*
ted, but also, by large extracts from Mr. Fuller to prove that he
had been grossly misrepresented; and above all to contribute a,
mite to the manifestation of th6 truth. Whatever in these let-*
ters (if any thing) may appear severe, it is hoped the reader will
attribute to any thing rather than ill design. He loves his bro¬
ther W. as, in the general* an useful >and successful preacher of
the gosptel, tho' he can by no means subscribe to many of his
tiews J and hopes, that, on reflection and cqol deliberation, he
will retract them^ The whole ig commended to the merciful
regards of those, 4nto whose hands it may lall,. and especially tQ
the gracious care and blessing of the Father of mercies.
THE WRITER*
WAfeniN^TOPf, June 15th, 1830.
_ n
LETTER t
Washington, May 1th, 1830.
Jlev. Cyrus White,
My Dear Brother.—I Ijave read
your "scripture view of atonement,"
with no little disappointment and re*-
gret. I had anticipated something,
fit least, like the good old doctrine
pf Justification by free grace alone ;
and that your effort would be, to
shew that your views of the use of
means were in perfect accordance,
fvith the sovereign and free grace of
(xod in the salvation of men. In va¬
rious conversations with you on the
use ofsoine hold and equivocal ex¬
pressions, indulged in by you, as
being capabltfof misconstruction and
hurtful tendency, ypu gave me such
qualifications, as were in some de¬
gree satisfactory; and I suppqsed
you would follow the same course in
your piece, I was justified also in
this, by your "apology;" in which
you assign, a^ one reason for pub¬
lishing your sentiments at this time,
"That your views had been misrep¬
resented, and you denounced as an
heretic, by men of your own denom¬
ination." From which I was led na¬
turally, to look for some explana¬
tions, shewing you had not departed
from the acknowledged Faith of the
denomination. But what must have
been my disappointment, when I
found, in the perusal, every view ta¬
ken of the doctrine went to justify
all I had feared, or heard reported
of you as an (irminian! Why cora^
plain of misrepresentations in your a*
pology, and justify all that had been
said of you in your book f Surely#
if you have not departed from th$
characteristic doctrine of the denom¬
ination, and gone to general proviJ*
sion and free-will ability, your book
most miserably belies you ! But be¬
sides your inconsistent attempt to re¬
move misrepresentations by acknow¬
ledging thp whole bill of indictment
made against you-^-you state anoth-
er reason inducing" the publication,
which to me is equally vague; You
say "several orderly baptists have
lately been excluded from their
church, for no other cause, but for
believing that Jesus Christ had made
a full atonementI must think, my
Brother, that there is a misrepresent
tation here made of the cause of the
exclusion of these "orderly baptists;'*
or an improper wording of it—For
whoever yet believed in an empty
incomplete atonement I I must con¬
clude, no one has ever been exclud¬
ed from his church for no other cause
than believing in the full and all pre*-
vailing merits of Christ's atoning
sacrifice. There must have been
some other cause than this, thus ex¬
pressed I But your last and most
[2]
Jy&ghty reason for the publication is
$his: "Ifthe doctrine of {Unitedatone¬
ment be an error (as you say you be¬
lieve it is) it involves the most seri-
pus consequences ; immortal souls
fire at stake ; and means must be u-
Ecdfor their salvation." Yes, my bro¬
ther, the QQnseguence^ wil! be inevit¬
able ! A limited atonement can save
i|jo body ; and Tn vain you ply the use
of means—for means will never rem-
*> * • % ;
edy the want offulness in the Etone-
jKcnt,
Yqij sjeem to be stirred in mind
because, as you say,- "men arc con¬
stantly employed in trying to prove
to sinners that there is no provision
anade for tbem ia the Gospel."-—
.This i-s a heavy charge; for if there
be men, pnder pretence of preach¬
ing the gospel, the burden of whose
ministry i& to prove that sinners, as
such, have no provision made in
Christ for their salvation, thoy xtrfc
incn of corrupt minds and engaged
in a work worse tharr folly ! But I
<Jo wot see the propriety of the infer¬
ence you draw from such preaching
.—"Th&t consequently they cannot
yepent, and. are under no obligation
to believe the gospelTfee power
to do any act, and of course to re¬
pent' and believe the gospel must be
inherent either natural of inspired,
' and hot in external prcjvisionSj ani.
obligations imply duty, and duty
rests on 'the authority of command,
and not on benefits proposed! You
think it time sinners "should be told
better»" That is that they can re¬
pent and believe. You very con*
clusively show that it is not so much
%lafull atonement" you are intent to
establish, as a general provisioh—*
and such a provision too as warrants
the salvation of no man; but only
puts it into the power of men by the
use of means to effect it—a provis¬
ion, which renders it jtetssiblej not
SO much to GoJy AS TO THEMSELVES
to be saved, by the diligent use of
means without which they would be
lost—forever lost J The atonement,
and all that God has done, or will,
or-Can do notwithstanding I
But as you seem to be of an hum¬
ble and teachable frame of mind, and
promise to renounce 3rour views, if
they should be pointed out to yon, to
be erroneous; -even by an kneiny^ ac¬
cording to theBrble«nd not by a "hu¬
man creed,u I shall attempt in some
future numbers, to examine your
sentimei^S not as an^enemy, but as
your friend and brother in the $QS-*
pel of Christ,
JESSE MERCER,
letter ii.
Dear Brother,
In my last, I promised you
gome examination of your views on
aconetnent. And first, you identify
•atonement with Propitiation. This?
tho' common amotig Commentators,
is in my mind, to confound cause and
effect. Propitiation is what Christ
is, as the saviour of sinners—atone¬
ment is what li.e has made by the of-
[ ? j
fetihg of Kimself to God for tig. Pro¬
pitiation is the great plan of mercy
itself—atonement is that reconcilia¬
tion and peace* which he has obtain¬
ed by his cross. Propitiatioa is the
victim for sacrlfice—-atonement is
the acceptance of that victim in the
place of the transgressor. Propitia¬
tioa is the redemption price-a-atone-
ment is the acceptance of that price
for the deliverance of the lawful cap¬
tives.
These words have a strong and
indisoluble connection in scripture
and-constitute the great scheme of
mercy, as it is both by aad through
our Lord Jesus Christ j and may
smile times be synonymously used,
nevertheless they aje strikingly dif->
ferent in significations The original
import of these words, as they oc¬
cur in. the New Testament, is dis¬
tinct—though it is said, that in the
Hebrew* they areboth derived from
words signifying TO COVER, as a lid,
like the mercy-seat did the law in
the Ark of the testimony* Paul in
Rom. 3: 25. uses the very word for
mercy-scat. "Whom God hath set
forth to be (Ilasterion) the Propitia¬
tory" which is to be approached
"through faith in his blood." Thus
Christ is the antitype of that grand
symbolical system ofdivin,e commu¬
nion made in the institution pf the
mercy-seat, John uses in his 1 Epis.
2: 2. and in 4: 10. a kindred word
(ilasmos) which is the victim, or
sin-offering itself.—But atonement
is made by tjae offering of that vic¬
tim acceptably to God. Thus in
Bo,nr. & 11. (where the word alone
pccurg in the New Testament) (Iia-
tallagin) the word, usually rendered
reconciliation, is used, and is cxJ
pressiveofwhat we receive by ChrisC
through faith, and is evidently the
effect of hia propitiatory sacrifices
Your manner t)f treating it therefore^
as a provision of life and pardon of¬
fered to sinners in the-gospel, is not
just; for it is that very life and parv
don obtained by the blood of the
cross.
By reference to the substitutional
, sacrifices made under the law (whertf
this word often occurs) we shall have
this view of it abundantly establish¬
ed* Let a few texts suffice. "Antt
Moses said unto the people, ye havt
sinned a great sint and now 1 will go
upunto the Lord; per adventure I shall
MAKE AN ATONEMENT/0?* your sin.'*
Exo. 32: 30* "Speak unto the chil~
dren of Israel, and say unto them ; If
any man of you bring an offering nn*
to the Lord'. lie shall offer it of hii
own voluntary will; and fie shall put'
his hand upon the lhcad of the burntf
offering, and it shall be accepted to
make atonement for /»" Lev. I: 4*
And the priest shall do with this, as
he did with.the bullock for a sin offer**
ing; and shall make an atonement for
them, and their sin shall be forgivc%
themLev. 4: 20. MAnd he shall
bring his trespass-offering before thn
L&rd for his sin, which he hath sin»'
ned; and the priest shall make an a*
tonemenl for hijn concerning Ids sin."
Lev. 5: 6. "And the priest, shall
make an atonement for him before the
Lord'* and it shall be forgiven him^
for any thing of all that he hath done
in trespassing {herein." Lev. G: 7.'
Tiuif, that the atonement- is th6'
t<
Consequence of offering the sin-offer¬
ings unto God, and not the offerings
themselves is most plain* I kno\V t)f,
iiot an instance, where the slft-offerJ •
ing is called thc atonement; bufc al¬
ways it is said to be ma"de by the oft-
feringofituntothe Lord. Now then
fts atonement is received fiom the
Lord JeSuS Christ, it must be sofn^
thing which he has, as mediator to
bestow ; and may be understood un-
. fter the following different terms. 1.
, it is called reconciliation. Dan. 9:
24. " To make reconciliation for
iniquity" Heb. 2; 17. " Christ an
high Priest in things pertaining to
God to make reconciliation for the
tins oj the people** 2. It is called
' jjeace. Col. 1: 20. " Andhdting
made peace by the blood of his cross.**
B. It is called salvationt Heb. 5: 9.
And being made perfect (thro' suf¬
ferings) he became the author of eter*
■taal salvation unto all them that ft-
hey him." Lastly. It is called re¬
demption* Rom. 3: 24. " Being
justified freely by Ms grace, through
ithe redemption that is in Christ
Jesus," Hebi 9:12. •it Christ by Ms
•ffion blood having once -entered into
the holy'place, obtained eternal re+
. &emption f&r n$"
Having laid down the scripture ac¬
count of what atonement is—it may
4se proper to examine its relation& by
■the same unerring Rule.
1. It relates to God. IF Christ
was set forth a propitiation thro'faith
lu his blood, to declare the righteous* ^
Hess of God in the remission! of sins
(Rom. 3: 25) and if it became him,
in bringing many #ons To GLORY, to
make the Captain of their Salvation
i.l
perfect through ftnflEoE^n£B*
2: 1Q.) If i«f to'it I <ji t controversy—'
the -atonement wag ipoe&sury, lac
some way, thai Co / might be jnst and
justify ihe Ungodly. (Tfom. 4: 5.)
I do not like very well your ul»*n that
'f the- atonement "must be thatt in itg
nature, which will wilder* Godprnpiti*
ousS* Strictly speaking God was ne4
ver unpropitious* Bpt sill was not on*
Iy an offence to him, T»i*t had thrown
obstructions in the way of his mercyi
The atonement therefore* must, be
that in Us nature rvhich will honour
him pii the- view pf all rational intek
.iigetices, in the vouchsafement of
pardon and acceptance. This Is ful¬
ly established in the following te^ts*
"Christ hxth loured us, and given him*
self far usf an offering and a saci ijict
to God, for a sweet smelling savour."
(Eph. 5: 2.) " HIio gave himself (td
God) for us, ihat he might redeem its"-
from, all iniquity.''* (Titus 2: 14.)
"How much more shall the blood of
Christ, who thro' the eternal Spit it
offered himself without spot to God,
purge your consciences from dead works
to serve the living God" (Heb. 9f
14.) *'Christ is also said to be High.
Priest in. things pertaining to god, to
malce reconciliation for sins** (Heb*
2r 17.) Thes$ texts &re in perfect
accordance with the to hole ritual Ser¬
vice ^vhefre it ill be seen, that all
the offerings for sins were made ft
God to make reconciliation, or atowe«
menf for the transgressors. Thus
says Fuller "'Atonement has respeci
to justice, tmdjast&6 to law, or the
revealed vvilfof ti bmcrejga, wRicE
has been violated: di its ver^tf^sl^u
is t® repaiA* its lianouu" (Sc^ vol. 4
t <
p. 2CG.) 'thus Christ is the end of
the law, or the fulfilment of it, For
righteousness, or the atonement, to e~'
Very one that belicvcth.
2. It relates to God, iri Yeferfeiice
to the sins* of those Who are atoned
for. As the scriptnres connect the
sins and the persons of those for
whom atooement is made* I choose
to put the two together* where the
scriptures have placed them» And
which will be seen clearly in the fol¬
lowing texts; iSarely he hath borne
our griefs, and carried our sor¬
rows. He was wounded for our
TRANStJRKSSloNS, he yeas brui»ed for
our iniquities; The chastise¬
ment of our peace ivas upon him,
and with ms stripes we1 are heal-
Ed. A.U we like sheep have gone
astray—we have turned every one to
his own way; and the lord Imth laid
on him the iniquity of us all.
When thou shalt make his soul an of¬
fering for sin he shall see his seed
**—lie shall see the travail of HiS
soul and he satisfiedi For he shall
bear their iniquities. because
he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the trans¬
gressors; and he bear the sin of
many, and made Intercession for
the transgressors. (Isa. 53 ch.)
Seventy Weeks tire determined upon
thy people to finish the trans¬
gression, and to make- an end of
sins. (Dan. 9: 24.) -Christ was
delivered Eor our offences, and
taised again for our justification.
(Rom* 4: 25.) And 1 delivered un¬
to you, thai which I received, how
that Christ died for our sins, ac¬
cording to the scriptures O. Cor. 15:
; 5
3.) Becaitsk Christ -alsd SUFFERED
FOR us: tVho his own self bare OUR
sins, in his own body yn the tree, th<ffl
we beirtg dead io sins, should live uft*
to righteousness: By V)hose stripes yc
were healed. For Christ also hath
once suffered Foil sins, the just
for the unjust that he might bring
us to CrQD» (1. Peter 2: 21. 24. 3:
18.) Thus the atonement is com¬
plete* It being a full satisfaction to
the claims of divine justice, through
the violated law, by the offence or
demerit of sins. This complete safc'
isfaction of the mediation of Christ
is expressed by—Ciirst's being the
end'of the Law—fulfilling the law
—Magnifying and making honoura¬
ble the law. And the intire and
full extent of Christ's sacrifice for the
redemption of transgressions mad'c
under the law, being expressed by
making reconciliation for iniquity-—•
an end of sin—-finishing transgression
—andjpurgmg-oUR sins by the CrozL
The fullness of the atonement is not
to be measured by the number saved;
but by its competency to save one
sinner. Since it is not to be im¬
parted by parts, but as an whole.
If it is capable amply to save one
sjlnNer that Tbelieveth in Jesus; then
it is of the same capacity to save tQ
the uttei most all that come unto God
by him. So that to tfdk of a limit¬
ed atonement, is to talkof^natone-
ment short of the requisitions of
justice, and which leaves sin parti¬
ally aton<e for ! and which of course
can save no one—or it is to suppose
it is administered by drops and that
the merits of Christ can be exhaust¬
ed; which I presume none will ^ultnif.
[ 0 ]
On tliig subject fuller thus writes,
"It lias been objected, that as hu¬
manity only is capable of suffering,
therefore humanity is only necessary
to make atonement. But this ob¬
jection proceedsupoh the supposition j
that the value of atonement arises
simply from suffering, and" not from
the character or dignity of»him who
suffers: whereas the scripture places
ii in the latter, and not in the for¬
mer. The blood of Jesus Christ his
son, chanseth its from, all sin.—He,"
By ^HIMSELF, Jiatk purged our sins.
Some, who have allowed, sin to be
an infinite evil, and deservihg of
endless punishment, have objected
to tlie necessity of an infinite atone¬
ment, by alleging, that the question
is .not what sin deserves, but what
God requires in order to exalt the
dignity of his government, while he
displays the riches of his gfacein the
forgiveness of sin. But this objec¬
tion implies that it would be consist-,
ent with the divine perfections to atfc
mit, not only what is "equivalent to
the actual punishment of a sinner,
bat of what is not equivalent: arid
if so, what good reason can be giv¬
en why God might not have entirely
dispensed with a satisfaction^ and
pardoned sinners without any atone¬
ment ? On this principle the atone¬
ment of Christ would be resolved in¬
to mere sovereign appointment, and
the necessity of it would be wholly
given up. But if go, there was no¬
thing rcquiredt in the mature of
things, to exalt the dignity of tha
divine government, while he dis¬
played the riches of his grace* an4
it could not with propriety be said,
that it became Him, for whom are
all things, in bringing many sons to
glory, to make the Captain &J theit'
Salvation- perfect throvgh svjferings.
If God required less than the real
demerit of sin for an atonement, then*
thoive could be no satisfaction made
to divine justice toy strch *in atone-*
ment. And though it would be im¬
proper to represent the great work
of redemption as a kind of coramer*
cial transaction betwixt a cireditor
and his debtor, yet the satisfaction
of justice, in all cases of offence, re¬
quires that ihere be. ait expression of
the displeasure of the offended against
the offender, equal to what the na¬
ture of the offence is in reality. An
atonement made by a substitute, in
any caset requires that the same end
be atnswercd by it, as if 4he guilty
party iiad actually suffered. It is
necessary that the displeasure of the
offehded shculd be expressed in atf
strong terms, or in a vyay adapted ta
make as strong an impression upon
all concerned, as if the law had, ta«
ken its course. Otherwse, atone*
ment is not made, and mercy triumphs
at the expense of righteousness."
Vol 8: 298-9.
I am, Dr. Brother,
Yours, &c.
JESSE JV1ERCER.
I 7 ]
JJETTEIt III,
t)ear fti'o-fkcr,
YOU object to the atonement be¬
ing made in the light of debt, as that
would require 4'the son of Ged to suf¬
fer the exact quantity of punishment
due to every trasgres&or." This you
tire "well assured, would render it
impossible, even to the son of God."
As a reason for tjjis, you allege that
^'eternal punishment is due to every
sin." Then it is a fair conclusion
that you do not believe that Christ
suffered as a substitute the exact
quantity of punishment due to every
sin,, But viewing the suffeiings of
Christ as making satisfaction to cri¬
minal justice you do; for you say
"the atonement was made in view
to the law, and is to be considered
a full satisfaction of it." And again
you say "the punishment due to sin
was inflicted on him." That ia Christ.
It would seem then, that you con¬
ceive that criminal) requires ?essthan
commercial justice—for if sin is view¬
ed in the light of debt "-it is impossi¬
ble even to the son of God" to make
an atonement—but if it is viewed as
a crime then atonement can, and has
been fully made. With the requi¬
sitions made on a sinner as a debtor
even the son of God cannot comply
—but the same requisitions mad© on
a sifiuer, as « crimimh readily
be fulfilled ! What is this, "but to
render sin sxiiall and thp atonement
less! The whole argument is at va¬
riance with right reason. For if it
is an evil to be a debtor it must be a
Greater eviL to be a criminal. And
O ~
if much is required to pay a debt,
more must 1>e requisite to delivef
from a capital offence. If then, the
atonement, viewed as the payment
of a debt is rendered impossible even
to the son of God, to bear the hea¬
vy load ©fits demand—'How much
less capable must he be to suffer the
punishment due to sin, as a crime 9
I do not mean to contend for the
atonement, as a commercial transact¬
ion; but I mean, to oppose the idea
of a vague atonement, J must con*
tend with Fuller that though we can¬
not view the great work of redemp¬
tion as a commercial transaction be*
twist a debtor and his creditor; yet
the satisfaction of justice, in all ca*
scs, requires to be equal to w-lmt the.
nature of the offence is in reality-s¬
and to answer the same end as if the
gu'dty party had actually suffered,-
And for Christ, as our substitute, to
have suffered less fo-r us ■than, we
should if the Jaw had faken its course,
would be «q atonement at all and
leave-us in our sins. I do not ad-
mife the distinction; n£>r do I tjelieve
anything is really gained "by it. It
s«ems however, bejtter calculated tq
fritter down the sufferings of Christ
whhiu the grasp of our comprehen¬
sion—to shew they were not, in re*
ajity, what was required for sins,
and to make them a shade* or re¬
presentation of what justice required,
rather than to present them in their
full view of infinite value. It ought
too, to be recollected what is impos¬
sible with men h possible with Gqd*
We poor limited creatures cannot
tell what calculations infinite wisdom
m
can make, nor what doings Almigh¬
ty power can effect. The scriptures
do employ terras takeji from com¬
mercial transactions to teach us our
obligation^ on the x>ne hand, and the
greatness of salvation on the other.
Our sins are figuratively called debts
«—the bloo,d of Chj-ist is- our redemp¬
tion price, and redemption itself is a
commercial transaction. T see no
reason,, therefore, why we should
depart from it, nor any thing in it
that renders atonement impossible.
J think my dear brother, that your
perplexity arises in a mistake you
seem to make, as to what is due to
every sin.—-"Eternal punishment"is,
the consequence of sin and the ina¬
bility of the sinner to make satisfac-.
tion for his offence? hut fiot *the re¬
quisition of the law on account of it.
The reason the debtor lies -in prison
is not that the law requires it, but
because he eannot pay his deht j see
Matt. 5: 26. God, by his holy law,
requires the. life of every transgres¬
sor—and in all .the variations of
character, he ordy requires his life*
The soul that sins die. The
wages of sin-is death* It is ^poin¬
ted unto men once to die. And it
remarkable liow oftervthis onc& is
connected with the sufferings and
death of Christ, to show its accord-,
ance with what was required—Thus:
Christ died unto sins once. Christ
was once offered tq bear the tins of
many. But now hath he appeared
once to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself. By ihe yfldch "will we are
sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ ONCE. Christ >
Imth also once sufferedjor sins, the i
just for the imjust. The ctvrnnl
i punishment, which you say, is the duft
■ of every sin, Clwist came not to~en-
dure, but as the law required thn
/«/« of the sinner, ho came to minis*
ter and give His life a ransom for
many—And I lay down my life for
the sheep, Herein pcrcdve tee tlm
love of Gady because, he laid down
pits life Jor ws. Thus you see we
are redeemed by tfie life of Gp<l. A
precious redemption-price!
But you allege thalifthe atonement
is tpade in the light of debt, "then
therp is no forgiveness with God, the
debt is fqlly discharged, apd all for
, whom the payment is made, may
claim heaven upon the principles of
justice, and not of merdy.*' JJtit if
the atonement be made tp criminal
justice, and is "full satisfaction•" if
Christ "suffered the punishment duo
to sin," where is the difference ill poiijt
of justice f B.oth are legal transac¬
tions. You state that if "the' debt
is fully discharged" the debtor injus¬
tice may claim his deliverance. I
contend that if the crime hj'ullysat*
" isfied for, the criminal may on the
same principles of justice claim fnq
discharge. I can possible see no
difference. Take a clear view ot'
the case; A. is cast into prison £or
debt, Jtjfl the last mite is paid. B<
pays. tlje uttermost farthing for A.
awj, has Satisfaction written on ihe
execution. No^v according to your
declaration,and accordingto law, A.
has the. right or refpase. Well, a-
gain*—A. is cast intq prison for a
crijne till he suffer the full demerit
of hjs guilt, J3. steps in and reiv
ders full satisfaction tt^the law f<\r
[91
his crime"; does n6t justice say let
the prisoner go free, I have found a
ransom? Surely, you will see that
the circumstance, of debt or crime,
lias nothing to do with the justice of
tlie case. You will say to me then,
do you believe that sinners ha*ve a
light to claim salvation on the score
ol a full atonement made by our Lord
Jesus Christ*? I do uot. Take a
fairer view—A. is cast into prison
to suffer the just demerit of his crime.
15. his Father, King and Judge pit¬
ies him, and would release him, but
the nature of the case forbids it. He
has one only elder son, amiable, ho¬
nourable and beloved, he proposes
the case to him with its difficulties;
C. ponders the matter. He loves
his Father—and pities his unfortun¬
ate brother, and undertakes for him.
The stipulations tire all laid dovv«
and mjide sure between B. and C,
—then C. throws himselfinto the
breach betwixt B. and A. Assumes
A's place and answers to ail the
claims of law and justice against him
.—sustains the honour and -dignity of
B. as King and Judg6 in this case,
and lays the ground for peace and
order in the kingdom. The applica¬
tion of this scale is easy to every
one* wfio understands the gospel plan
©f redemption. Here full and com¬
plete satisfaction is made, tint yet
.carries no claim of deliverance to-A;
he has had nothing to do in the mat¬
ter, it is all grace to him. The
schema ofti'is deliverance originated
with B. his Father and King thro'
the compliance of C. heartily yield-
to the will of his Father. 4«d
.tboasrh k is A mat ton of justice ac¬
cording to the covenanted agree-*
ments, promises, and fulfilments
between B. and C. and these C*
may of right plead, yet it leaves A.
in all his sin-and misery and under
law and condemnation. Now you
may see, though "the debt is fully
discharged"—the satisfaction for sin
is fully made, yet it affords to Vin-,
tiers no "claim to heaven on the
principles of justice;'* because it. o-
riginated not with them, but with
God on whom they had no claims for
compassion—Indeed) if they had
procured for themselves a good and
acceptable surety, who had jmadft
full satisfaction for their sins, they
would—they must have had a just
right to deliverance. But since th«y
-had no part in the scheme, but it
was all of God—of h'im are ye in
Christ Jesus, who oe God is made
unto, us wisdom, and righteousness%
and sanctification, and redemption.
Both the plan and the application of
it are clearly of God, and is there¬
fore, a matter of the merest mercy and
free grace to sinners justly condemn¬
ed under the law, and lying under its
curse till they are quickened and
made aJive in Christ. Thus though
th^ir "ilebt is fully discharged" in
the plan of redemption as it lies with
God, yet the Holy Ghost can, ai)d
does in conviction teach sinner^
"that they aie justly condemnedt and
that if they are saved, it must he by
God's mercy alone/' For the Di
vino Spirit does not first teath mors
what they are in Christ Jesus, but
what they are in themselves and un¬
der the violated law, and then, he
piescnts to them Christ the pio;jitia-
E10 J
tion, "that by faith in Ins blood,"
they may see the righteousness of
God sustained in the remissioa of
their sins*
Thus ray Brother, I trust I ha^e
shewn that though sins be-yiewecf in
the light of debts, yet it is possible
to the son of God to discharge tlienij
and that he has done so completely;
gtnd nevertheless, sinners are justly
condemned, and have no claim for
salvation ai)d heaven "on the prinoj*
ple§ of justice," but on those of mer¬
cy alone; and that nil the praise is
due., for this adorable, stupendous
scheme of mercy and grace, and for
its application also, to God and thei
Lamb forever and ever Amen,
J am wit*1 due consideration*
Yours*
JE§SE MERCER
IiETTER IV.
pear brother,
YOU proceed, in your second
proposition, to consider the extent
of the atonement* You have alrea¬
dy made the violated law the meas¬
ure 6f the atonement, and its fulness
to consist in its being "a full satis¬
faction of it"—and in its capacity to
"sustain the dignity of the Throne
of God in venting mercy to the offen¬
der." And sundry times in the
course of your argument, you haye
repelled objections by this idea, and
plead the fulness- bf the atonement,
from what it is in itself considered)
independent of any use, which might
be made of it. Hat! you stuck to
this view of it, I should have hact
little dispute with you; for the atone¬
ment must be of infinite worth, ow¬
ing to the dignity of the person who
made it; and as it is incapable*-, of
exhaustion by use, so it is capable
of infinite application. JSut now you
adopt qiiile another measure, and
make the fulness of the atonement
to lie iii its ■beitrg coexfeut with the
human rac>% And you use the word's ;
full and limited? in reference to tt,
in strict agreement with the ideas of
all mefr, or a, part. This vifcw of the
atonement's fulness not only the
wholescope of your argument proves,
but you Jhave^, in so many words,
said * 'since It was just as easy for
him {God) to make provision for allt
as a part} or in other words to make
a full atonement, as a partial one,"
Here we can make no mistake: If
the atonement is a provision of sal¬
vation ^for all the human family'*
it is full—but if it is restricted to a
part, then it is not full—it ispartiah
I should not have been so much sur¬
prised at your general provision
course,-and the manner in which you
classify and apply the scriptures, if
you. had been of yesterday* you
oU<jht to have known* that it is un¬
tenable to take a Sentiment from ai
ny class of texts, without rpgard to
other scriptures, which have a hear¬
ing on the* same-subject, In read¬
ing your views on this subject I was
frequently led" to ask; within myself 5
V^hy tlieji- are not all men saved/
tr
"j^ut as you deny that your views fa¬
vour the doctrine of universal salva¬
tion (to which your arguments, seem
tome, to have the greatest tenden¬
cy) I then was led to inquire what is
it, that causes one sinner to be sav¬
ed, rather than another? In your
-^iew it cannot be th& atonement,
after all its fulness ! For you make
aJl unbelievers stand in the same re¬
lation to it as heKevers do; and yet
you say "the impending1 storm will
burst with fury upon the heads of
all unbelievers, in the awful day of
accounts." The fairest answer I
can gether from your piece is thus
expressed. For by works are ye
saved through faith, and that of
yourselves for it is not the gift of
God. You have always professed
to me to be with Fuller in senti¬
ments; but Sir, you have put your¬
self with. Fuller's opponents. If y ou
will read his controversy w ith Button
and Philanthropos you will have all
your questions answered. I will
here quote a part of his reply to Phi-
lanthopos, as appropriate in the pre¬
sent case. "I suppose P. is not ig¬
norant, that Calvanists in generals
have considered the particularity of
redemption as consisting, not-in the
degree of Christ's sufferings ^astho'
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 tir Appointed
the price of redemption, the objects
of that redemption ascertained, and
the ends to be answered -by the whole
transaction determined. They sup-
' pose the sufferings of Christ in them#
pelves considered, are of infinite va¬
lue, 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. These views of the sub¬
ject accord with my own. I know
not but there is the same objective
fulness and sufficiency in the obedi¬
ence and sufferings of Chist, for the
salvation 6f sinners, as there is in
the power of the Holy Spirit for their
renovation} both are infinite; yefe
both are applied under the direction
of infinite wisdom and uncontrolab's
sovereignty. But great and nwes-
sary as this mercy is, if nothing move
than this had been done, not one ot
the human rage had ever been oy-
ed. It is necessary to our salvation1,
that a way, and an highway to Grtri
should be opened; Christ is such a
way; but considering the depravity
of human nature, it is equally ne¬
cessary that some effectual provision
should be made for our ivallcing in,
that way. We conceive, Christ
made such provision by his death,
thereby procuringthe certain bestoW-
ment of faith, as well-as all other
spiritual blessings, which follow up¬
on it, that, in regard of all the sonr
who are finally brought to glory, h&
was the surety, or captain, of tbeitf
salvation; that their salvation was,
properly speaking, the end or de¬
sign of his death.
©
I think I might reduce all that is
necessary to be said upoii this -sub¬
ject to two questions.
I. Whether oyir Lord Jems Chrisi
1123
tad atfy ausslute determination
in hi& deflih tp save any of ttle
humaft racfi? If the affirmative of
this question be proved; if it beshowtf
that Christ A«<#such ail absolute pur¬
pose in his death J the limited extent
of that plirpose most follow of courses
The reason is plain: An absolute pur¬
pose must be effectual* If it exten¬
ded to all mankind, ail mankind
would certainly tie saved* Unless
therefore, we will maintain the final
salvation of all mankind, we rntfst
either suppose a limitation to the ab¬
solute determination of Christ to
save, or deny any such determina¬
tion 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 rea¬
sons for which are as follows.:
1. Th^ promises made to Chtist of-
the certain efficacy of his death.
One of our grand objections to the
scheme of P-. is, that,tn proportion
as he extends the tobjects for whom ■
Christ died beyond those who are""
actually .saved, hp diminishes the
efficacy of his death, and renders all
the promises concerning it of no -ac¬
count. His scheme, instead of ma¬
king redemption universal, suppos¬
es that -Chrst*s death did not prop¬
erly redeem any man, nor render
"tfie salvation of any man a matter of
certainty. It only procures an offer
of redemption and reconciliation to
mankind in general. We appre-
heud this is ditnihishing the efficacy:
of Ch rist^s death, without answer¬
ing any valuaWo end. Noj is tbjs ;
all: Tsuch an 1»3 {/otliesis {tr
us, utterly inconsistent with atlthri.se
scriptures, where tiod Fathfciiis
represented as promising his Sota oL
reward for his^ sufferings, in the sal¬
vation -Of poor sinners. God the Fa¬
ther engaged, saying, "Thy people
shall be willing in the day of thy pow¬
er,. in thd beauties of holiness from the
womb nf the morning; thou hast (shall
have) thq'du© of thy youth. Yes: lie
engaged that; he should see his scedj
that, the pleasure tif the Jehovaii
should prosper in his hand; that lift
should see of the travail of his mul,
and be satisfied; and by. Ins L'nowlcJge^
it is added, shall my pighteous servant
justijy manyt for he shall beAr th'/vf
iniquities* Jt was promised to Christ
as the reward of his sufferings, that
kings should see% and arise; princes
aUor it was ^dded, shall worship be*
cause of the Lord that is faithful;
. and the Holy One, of Isrctcl shall
xrfioose thee: now saith Jehovaii, hi
an acceptable time I have heard theti
and in d day of Activation have I help*
« ed thee; and, I will preserve thee, and
give thee for a covenant of thepeople;
to establish the earth, to cause to in*
herit the desolate heritages; that thou
may est say to the prisoners, go for{h%
to them that &it in darTcness, show
youvselvcs*—<-Ifehold, these shall coma
from fari andJo^these from the nQrtht
and from the westh and these from $8
land of fiinim* Uut what security
I askr was there lor the fulfilment of
these promises, but upon the suppo¬
sition oftbp certain ^alvatron of some
of the human race? IJovV cpuld it
becertain that Chfisf should yMstify
; *'Psa.. cs^3. Isa. liii. lq, IV x\a. 1-9. J3,
11
Hiany, j? there was no effectual pro¬
vision made that any should knovj
fend believe in him? And what pro¬
priety was there in -assigning iiis
bearing th&ir hiiquitieS as his reA-i
bon and evidence of itr if there is
no necessary Connexion between our
iniquities being borne away, and
fcur persons being justified ?
2. The characters under which
Christ died. He laid down his life
as a shepherd; and for whom should
\ve expect him to die in that charact¬
er? fW the shcepi no doubt. So
ihe scriptures, infocm ik: The good
shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
I lay doufn my life for the sheep.
Those tor whom Christ laid down
-fais life £ire represented as being his
gheep, prior to their coming to the
fold. These, saith the blessed Re¬
deemer, 1 must bring, and they »hall
hear my voice; and there shall be one
fold, and One shepherd. As sheep
pte committed into the hands of a
shepherd, and he becomes responsi¬
ble for theii4 preservation and resto¬
ration, so Christ is represented as
the great shepherd of the sheep, whose
Jjlood was shed by covenant; and who*
by fulftliing that covenant, vvag en¬
titled to a discharge, which, as th£
representative of those ipr whom he
died, he <e»jjoyed in his resurrection
for the dead.*
Again: Christ laid down his life
as a Jiusband; and for whom should
w<? expect him to die in that charac¬
ter ? For his bride surqly. So the
scriptures inform us: Husb&nds, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved
i "
* JuliaI5j, 1& Hfibjj nyij 27,
the, church, arJ, gam himself"for its-
The love of a husband, of which hi^
death is here supposed to be the RE1-
SULT> is certainly discriminating-.-
Ifitissaid, "True; but the church
here means actual believers;" I re¬
ply, If they were actual believers, I
should suppose they were not unsanc-<
tifed; for faith purifies the heart j
butChrist gave himself that he tnight
SANCJtify them with the washing of
water by the wotd>» Besides, he did
not die for believers, as such ; for,
while we tOcre yet enemies, Christ.
died for us\ but he died for the church,
as such considered. This is evident,
for that his death is represented as
resulting from his love, which he ex-»
ercises as a husbandi I conclude^
therefore* church cannot, in this
place, be understood of 'hose only
who actually believed.*
Again : Christ laid down his life
aS a surety. He is expressly called
tfie surety of a better testament. Ho
needed not to be a surety in the bo
half of the Father—but there was
danger on our part. Ought we not,
therefore/, to Suppose, that, after the
example of the,high-priest under the
law, -Christ was a surety for the peo¬
ple, to God 9 and, if so, we cannot
extend the objects for whom he was
■■a surety, beyond those who arefinal-
ly saved, without supposing him to
fail in what he had undertaken. Tn
perfect conformity with these senti¬
ments, the following scriptures re¬
present our Lord Jesus, I appre¬
hend, as having undertaken the cer¬
tain salvation of all those for whom
he lived and died. It becgttichim for
* Ephes. v- 2#, 2§,
M
tuhom are all things—hi bringing ma¬
ny soiii to glory, to make the Captain
Cf their saltation perfect through of¬
ferings. He died, not for the Jew¬
ish nation only* but that he might
gather together in one the children of
Cod that were scattered abroad.—The
children being partakers of flesh and
Hood, he (ifoo look part of the same.
—-Here am I, and the children whom
the Lord hath given me. Though
we receive not thepower or privilege
to become the softs of God till after (
we believe in ChrjjstJ yet, from be¬
fore the foundation of the world, were
tve predestinated to the adoption of
children, by Jesus Christ, unto him¬
self according to the good pleasure
of his will; and so, in the esteem of
God, were considered as children,
even while as yet we lay scattered a-
Jbroad under the ruins of the fall.* -
Once more: Christ laid down his
life as a sacrifice of atonement; and
for whom did the priests under the
law offer up the sacrifice ? For
• those, surely, on whose behalf it was
sanctified or set apart for that pur¬
pose. Some of the Jewish sacrifi¬
ces were to make atonement for the
sin of an individual,* otiiers, for the.
sins of the whole nation: But every
sacrifice liad its special appointment,
and was supposed to atone for the
sins of those, and those only, *m
Whose behalf it was offered. Now,
Christ, being about to offer liitoself
a sacrifice for sin, spake on this
wise: For their sakes I sanctify my¬
self that they also may be sanctified
.* Heb. vii. 22. II. 10, 13, 14. John ay, 52, i.
2£. Eph. i, 4, 5.
M
through the truth. "Vor thei* suites"
as much as if he had said, "who
were given me of the Father, 1 set
tfiyself apart as a tictim to venge¬
ance, that I may consecrate and
present them fautless before the pre*
sence of toy Father."+
Such effects are ascribed to the
death of Christ as do not terminate
upou all mankind. Thosp for whom
Christ died are represented as re*
deemed by the sheding of ,his 1>lood?
he hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, hieing made a ciirse for utf
But redemption includes the forgive¬
ness of sin; (lipb. 7. Col< 1.14.)
and we know that to be a blessing
which does not terminate upon all
mankind- Farther: Pardon and ac¬
ceptance are not only attributed to
the death of Christ, bat the return
of any at all is ascribed to the same
cause. He gave himself for us, that
he npight redeem us from all iniquity
and purify to himself a peculiar peo«
pie, z'ealous of good works. (Titus
ii. 14.) He gave himself for the
church, that he might sanctify and
cleanse it. (Eph. v. 26.) Our old
man is said to be •crucified with
that the bedy of sin might be des»
troyed. (Rom. vi. 6.) But we see
not these effects produced upon all
mankind; nor are all mankind his
peculiar people.
4.,The intercession of Christ, which
is founded upon 3iis death, -and ex?
ptessive of its grand design,, extends
not to all mankind: Ipmgfdr them,
says Christ, I pray not for the wriit
t John xvii, 9, 1$V-
t Gal. iii.
tI
but for them vjhom thou hast given me,
for they are thine. (Jojin xvii. 9.)
The intercession of the priests under
the law, so far as I know, was al¬
ways in behalf of the same persons
for whom the oblation was offered.
J. The persons prayed for by our
Lord were all those given him by the
Father, put the term given is not
applied to believers as s>uch\ for men
are represented as given of the Fa¬
ther, prior to theii? coming to Christ.
(John vi. 37) 2. The scripture ac¬
count of Christ's intercession does
not confine it to the believers: When-
he hung upon the cross, he prayed
for his^nemiesj and herein most evi¬
dently fulfiled that prophecy: He
poured out his soul unto death, he was
numbered with the transgressors, he
bear the sin of many* and made in¬
tercession for, the transgres¬
sors. (Isa. liii. 12.) It is expressly
said (John xvii. 20.) Neither pray I
for these atone, but for them also
who shall b&lieveinwe through their
word.
5. If the doctrine of eternal, per¬
sonal, and unconditional election be
a truth, that of a special design in
the death of Christ must necessarily
follow. J might urge all those scrip¬
tures and arguments, which appear
to me, to prove the doctrine of elec-
tio.nj but this would capry mp beyond
my presept design. I only say, the
following scriptures, among many
others, appear, to mc, to be jpon-
clusive uppu that subject, and such
as c'annot be answered, yyithou^ a
manifest force, beitig put upon them.
God the Father has blessed us with
ajl spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus,
1
' according gs he hath chosen us m h'ijfS
hefote the foundation of the world, that
ive should be holy. (Fph. i; 3, 4.)
God hath from the beginning chosen
you to salvation, through, sanctifca#
tion of the spirit and belief of the
truth. (3 Thes, ii. 13.) Whom he did
foreknow, he did, predestinate to be
conformed to -th$ image of his son.
Moreover, whom, he did predestinate,
thepi he also called: whom he called,
them fyc also justified} and whom he
jMstifedr them he also glorifiedi
(Rom. viii, 29, 30) I have much peo*
pie in this city. (Apts xviii. 10,)
As many as ippre ordained to eternal
' life b§lieyed. (Acts xiii, 48.) Elect*
according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, through sanctifica-
tion of the spirit, unto obedience^
(I Peter 1: 2.) Who hath saved usp
and called us w\th an holy calling,
not according to our works, but ac¬
cording to hu own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began, (2 Tim. i. 9.)
At this present thn$ also there is a-
remnant, according to the election -of
grace.—The electionhath obtained itf
and the res„t were blinded—I w\ll
have mercy on whom I will have mercy
and I will have compassion on whorrj,
I will ha,ve compassion.—So then, it
is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runeth, but of God that sheweth
mercy. (I^om. ix. 15, !(>• xi. 5. 7.)
The above passages must be al¬
lowed to speak only of a part of
mankind. This part of mankind
must be styled the chosen of God,
given of the Father &c. either be¬
cause of their actually being believ¬
ers, or because it was foreseen that
tin
w^uld believe, or as we sup¬
pose* jbecause God eternally propo¬
sed in himself that they should be¬
lieve and be say ed. It cannot t>e on
accouni of the first; seeing they were
phosep before the foundation, of the
world, and given to Christ prior to
their believing in him. It cannot be
on account of t,he second; because,
then^ what he hatfdone for us must
have- been according to sopie good
in us, and not according to h%s own
purpose and grace given us in Christ
Jesus, before th$ world began. It
would aIs.Q be contrary to all those
scriptures recited above, which rep¬
resent our being phosen and given
of the Father, £is the cause of faith
p.nd holiness. If our conformity- to
the -image of the Sonoj Qod, ourfaith,
holiness, an4 obedience, are the effect$
of" election, they cannot be the
ground or reason of it. Jf men are
given to Christ prioy jlo the cpnslide-.
jationr orf their coming to him, then
they cannot be-said to bp given on
Account of either the first pr second,
I conclude it must be on account of
the last.
6. The character of the redeemed
• in the world above Empires the setitf^*
ments for \vhich we plead. Not
only did the four living creatures,
and the fou*' -apd^ twenty elder?
(which seem to represent the church
rnillitant) adore the Lamb, say*
ing, Thou mast dain, and hast re¬
deemed Vs to God by thy blood,
of every Jcindred, and toriguef and
people, and nation; but it is ^vitnes*
sed of those who are without fanfy
before the throne of God, that they,
were redeemed (or bought) from, «i*
mong men, being the first fruits-wify
Qad and the- Lamb. But, if all of
every kindred, and tongue, an(J
people, and nation, were bought by
the blopd of Christy there could Jbej
no possibility of any being bough|
from among them.
Thft. above are some ©f the rea^
spns which induce me to think.there
was a certain, absolute, and, conse¬
quently, limited design in the deatfj
of Christ, securing the solvation of
all those, and only those,, whd are
finally saved." Vol. 1. %92—303^
J ^m yours in love,
JESSE MERCER;
BETTER V,
Jpear Brother, J effects ascribed to Christ'® death-*^
IN my last I have quoted large- j the intercession of Christ foitnded op
his death—the doctiine of eternal,
personal and uncoriditional election
and the song of the redeemed in hea»
ven* J will now ^ive liis rpply ts
the exparty scripture^you baye clas¬
sed and arrayed in your cause. t)n
which you have rather gire^ us &
ly from Mr. F. to prove to you the
inconsistency of ypur unlimited a-
tonement with the promises made to
Ch rist of the certain efficacy of his
death.—The characters under which
he died—as shepherd; husband, sure¬
ty and sacrifice of atonement—the
I 17 ]
on words, than fair ai\d conclu¬
sive argument. Yoti speak of God's
love, in terms, the consequences
of which yoii seem not to perceive,
and which I conceive you cannot re¬
concile to the divine government.^—
Mr. F. continues his argument with
J3, in reference to the unlimited ex¬
tent of Christ's cjeq,th: and says—
'•The limited extent of Christ's
death is said to be "inconsistent with
the divine goodness, and the tender
mercies of God over (ill his wqyTcs"
To this it Is replied, Fallen angels
are a part of God's works, as well
as falleu men; but Christ did not die
for-them: if, therefore, his death is
to be considered the criterion of di-
Fin-e goodness, and if the exercise-of
punitive justice is inconsistent with
that attribute, then, suppose we
were to admit that Christ died for
all mankind, still the difficulty is ne¬
ver the nearer being removed.
That God loves all mankind I
make no doubt, and all the works
of his hands, as such considered, fal¬
len angels themselves $ot excepted :
but the question is, whether he
lofes them all alike; and whether
the exercise (of punitive justiee be
inconsistent with universnf gfoodness?
It is going great lengths, for & w«ak
worm to t^ke 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
pot say, there is no love, no good¬
ness, in all the providences of God
towards mankind, nor yet in his gi-
yiog them the means of grace and
4he invitations of the gospel, though
he does not all |or them which he
could do, to incline ihemtp emtn'OiC©
them, aud lias neither purposed nor
provided for such an end." Mr. F*
in his controversy with Mr. Taylor,
Vol, i. p. 303. says Mr* T. "must
admit that God could have actually
saved the whole world in the same
way, and suffered not any of the
human race to perish; and all this,
too, in consistency with justice.
And yet he does not. What then/
According to Mr. T. all must be
ascribed to want of love. Farther tf
Mr. T. I should think, will not dsfc-
ny that God could have spread the
gospel, and that consistently with
both his own justice, and the free
; agency of man, all over the earthy
and at every period of time since
the fall of man; and yet he has not.
Yea, before the coming of his Son,
he suffered all nations but one, for
many ages, .to walk in their own
ways; this* according to Mr. T's
reasonings, must all be ascribed to
want oflove% and so lie as a reproach
upon the character ofGod."
Here; to shew that God's love and
tender mercies towards the works of
his hands, can never be arraigned
at the bar of our affections, Mr. F^
introduces objection of the same
sort Purged hy Mr. Wesley against
Mr, Hervey." Said Mr. W. wwiU
God deny what is necessary -for the^
present comfort and final acceptance
of any one soul that he has made £
Would you deny it to any, -if it'were
in your power ?" To which the irn
genioqs Mr. Hervey replied, suys
Mrf F. To show the error of such a
sentiment, and the fallacy of such
-reasonings, I shall just mention .a
4>-
{ 18 J
tecent tntjancbply fact: News is
brought, that the Princ<? ixeorge,
man of waff Admiral Broderick's
ship, is burnt and sunk, and above
four hundred souls, that were on
board, are perished. ISix: hours the
flames prevailed; while every mejans
were used to preserve the ship and
crew; but allto^no purpose. In the
mean time, shrieks and groans, bit¬
ter mournings and piercing qries,
were heard ft om every quarter. lea¬
ving, despair, and even madness
presented themselves in a variety of
forms. Some ran to and fro, dis.-1
Iratted with terror, not knowing
what they did, or what they should
<^o. Others jumped over-board from
all parts; and to avoid the pursuit of
0&e death, leaped, into the jp.ws of
another. Those unhappy wretches
who could not swim, Were Obliged to
remain upon the toreck, though
flakes of fire fe.tf on their bodies.
Soon the masts went away, and kill¬
ed numbers, those who were not
killed thought themselves hapyv to
get upon the floating timber. JXor
yet were tbcy safe; ior, the fire ha¬
ving communicated itself to the guns,
vyliicb were -loaded and shotted, they
swept multitudes from this their last
refuge^—What say you, sir, to this
UimbU.1 narrative ? Does not your
Le irt bleed ? Would you nave stood
I and denied your succour, if it
bid jeen in your power to help?
Yu ifie Lord saw this extreme- dis-
trnoj*. He heard their piteous moansr
He k i-s uble to save them, yet with-
ui '\ Iiiij c-s^istance. JNow, because
j mi h'i il 1 gladly have succoured
tUeui, ii jou could, and God Al».
mighty could, but would not scnA
them aidj will ypu therefore, con¬
clude that you are above your Lord ?
and t;bat your loving Tiindjiess isgrea*
ter than his? I will not offer to
charge any such consequence upon
you. I am persuaded you abhor the
thought." See letters to Mr. W,
pp. 288^-r-O' This, with all similar
disastrous providences, with the fact4
that those wftq haye been blessed
witb -the full means of gospej light
are now, atid ever have been vastly
in the ininority, leaves your umw-r
sal system, witfy a cannon shott>hfo*
its hull, a drifted wreck!
•"But" says Mr. F. reply to P,
"•'The twain stress of the argument
seems to lie in the meaning -of such
gefteiaL. expressions as a,ll we®-*
world-rrrwho,U vMirldt fyc* the terms
ransom, propitiation appear, to
me, to-express what is true only of
those who arre finally save<l. To di$
for us appears, to. me, to express
the design, or intentionrpf the Re*i
deemer. Ohrist's death effected a
real redemption, through whigh wa
are justified. He redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being madv
curse fofus, and thereby secured the
blessing to come upon us in due time
(Rom. 3: 24. Gal- 3: 13, 14.) such
a meaning, therefore, of^the gene¬
ral expressions above mentione&tfoes
not appear, Jo me, agreeable, but
contrary to the scope of the inspire^
writers* and what involves in it va¬
rious absurdities, contradicted by o-^
ther scriptures.
The following observations af6
submitted to the judgment of the im-
partial reader,
r is j
1. It ia the usual language of
scripture, when speaking of the
blessings of salvation extepding to
the Gentiles, to describe tlrem by
indefinite, termsz O ihou that hearest
grayer, unto thee shall all flesh
come—The glory of thei Lord shall
be revealed, and all flesh shall isee
it together—And it shall come to
■ pass» that jrorn one new moon to an¬
ther , and from one Sabbath to' anoth¬
er > shall all fleS>h £ome 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, &fc. Thy MaJcer is
thy husband (the Lord of hosts is his
name) the God of the whole earth
shall he be called'*—»All the ends
of the world shall remember and turn
unto the Lord: and all the kind¬
reds of the- nations shall worship be¬
fore thee.—And I, if I be lifted up,
will draw all men to me.—Every
valley shall be filled, and every moun¬
tain end hill shall be brought low;
Mnd all flesh shall see the salvation
of God.—All nations whom thou
hast made shall come and worship be¬
fore thee, O Lord, and shall glorify
thy name.—All kings shall fall
downbefore him: all nations shall
^ serve him.—Men shall be blessed in
Mmv all nations shall call him
blessed.*
These passages, with .many oth¬
ers, express blessings which cannot
be understood universally, as P. him¬
self must acknowledge- Now I ask.,
.would not these furnish a contender
* Psa. 65: 2, Isa. 40v 5. 66. 23. Joel 2; 28.
Jsa. 54: 5. Psa. 22: 27. Jobfl 12: 3^, LukeSi 6.
Tsu. 86: 9. 72: 11. 17.
for the universal and final salvation
of all mankind with as good an ar-
gument as that which P. used against
us? Might he not say, "the sub*
ject in question can require no fig¬
ures. Surely the great God could
not intend to impose upon his poor,
ignorant creatures. He could re¬
ceive no honour from such an impo¬
sition. It would be ho glory to you^
sir, to ensnare a fly or a gnat. We
are infinitely more below the Deity
than a fly or a gnat is inferior to us^
He cannot, then, be honored by de¬
ceiving us. And we may say, with
reverence, that his justice, and all
his moral perfections, require that
he should be explicit in teaching ig¬
norant men on subjects of such im*
portance as this
2. The time in which the New
Testament was written renders su<jh
a sense of the indefinite terms there
used very possible and very probable*
The Jews, it is well known, were*
at that time, very tenacious of e>zK
elusive privileges. The generality
of even those who believed were ex¬
ceedingly jealous, aud found it hard
work to-relinquish their peculiar no¬
tions, and be reduced to a level
with the Gentiles. It seems highly
proper, therefore, that the Holy
Spirit should^ in some sort, cut off
their vain pretensions*, and this he
did, not only by directing the apos¬
tles to the use of indefinite language,
but by putting words into the mouth
•ofCaiaphas, their high-priest. He
bore witness for God, though he
meant no such thing, how that Je¬
sus should die for that nation; and
not for that nation onljj, but that al%
'*&) he should get fit & together vi one
THE CHILDREN OF GOD THAT WER^
SCATTERED ABROADj (John Hi 51*
52.)
3 The scopes sfcnd c&iinection of* sei-
Teral ttt the passages produced,
countenance such an interpretation i
1 Tim* ft. 6. He gave himself u
ransom/of all, fyc. Thiols a passage
on which considerable stress is laid.
Th© whole passage reads as follows?
1 exhort, therefore, that first of
supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks be made for all
men: for kings,, arid for all that are
in authorityi that toe may lead a qui-
-tiandpeaceable life'in all godliness
and honesty. For this is good aiid
acceptable in the sight of GchI our Sa¬
viour. who> will have all men to be sa-
vtd, and to come to the knowledge of
the truth. For there is one God^and
one mediator between God and men,
the man Jesus Christ; who gave hirru-
telf a ransom for oil, to be testified
iff due time. Whereunto I am or-
dain^d a preacher and an apostle, «
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and
vprity,
^ allow it to be the* revealed will
of God, that every" man who hears
the go^ppl, should retiirn to Tiitn by
Jesus Christ; and that whosoever so
Upturns shall surely be* saved. But]
t apprehend, let us understand by <
the Will of God, in this place, what
we'may, we can never make it ap¬
plicable to all men universally* By
the truth, which God will tiave all
men come to the knowledge of, is
plainly intended that pf the one God,
4tnd one mediator between God and
men* therman Christ Jems} btjt in
*
o j
sense can it t»e SftuT to Gfod^s mil
thtit all-tneHNiuiversuH^shbfotd <?oni#
to the knowledge of th<? lattffj; branch
«fthis truth, tinldss it be hisVilI
that millions ot the humart rtrtMj
should believe in him of \frhom thejr
have nev&r heard*
I should think tfte latter part of
verses G, 7, determines the
ing. The phrase, To t3e testify
ed in due time, doubtless refers to
the gospel beings preached among
all nations* thoiigfi not to all the in¬
dividuals of a»y one nation, before
the end of the world* Ueifce' it fo^
lows, Whereunte t am ordained -d
f preacher-^a teacher of the Crcntile\
injaith and verity." It is not rda-
json^bte that the ransom of Cfmst
should extend farther lhail the testis
mony of the Gospel; nor that it is ihd
will of God that-miy sho4M be smtil
a^nd come 'to the knowledge of the
.truth, to whom that-saviftj* truth
shall have evidently, not been made
; known—-for that would be for Got!
to will an ntrpossibility." It is
ilent the all -men, in the text} wliotri
G<?d will have saved, ami fo* whom
Christ gave himself a ransom are
the all $en for whom prayer^
and thanks are to be given to God*
Now as Christ prayed not for ihe
world, andL as we are not to pray
for some m$n;—and yet far greafef
nurrtbers are not objects? of thanks
to Gody It must be understood of
all those considerations and degree*
of men, whom God will, •according
to prophecy, Jbjring to the knowledge
of the truth, and, smce, by live testi*
mony of Christ, made in dtre time,
in the dispensation of the fullness of
I 2
At ti'iic.ij (Epli. 1: 10.) Hut Mr.
!'• proceeds—"I have seen nothing',
at present, sufficient to convince me
but that this is the meaning of 1.
John ii. 2. He is the propitiation
for our sins, and not for ours only*
but also for the sins of the whole
world. John, the Writer of the E-
pistle, Was a Jew, and "it being
written by an apostle of the circum¬
cision, it is not doubted hut it was
written to the Jews." The term it¬
self, also, which is rendered propi¬
tiation, plainly alludes to the Jew¬
ish mercy-seat. It is true, that ma¬
ny things in It will equally apply to
Jews and Gentiles* Christ is the
advocate of the one, as well as of the
other: but qfter all, I wish it to be
considered, whether the text refer
to any other than believers of either
Jews or Gentiles. In my opinion, it
does not; and, if so, the argument
from it in favour of the universalex¬
tent of Christ's death, is totally in¬
validated* My rea.ibns are as fol¬
lows: the term propitiation is put for
what Christ is unto us through faith.
He is set forth to be a propitiatoin,
through faith in his blood. (Rom. Hi.
25.) He cannot therefore, one should
think, fee a propitiation to any but
believer?. Christ being out propiti¬
ation certainly supposes his being a
sacrifice for sin; but it also supposes
more: it includes the idea of that sac¬
rifice becoming the medium of the for¬
giveness of sin, and oj communion with
God. It relates, not to what has
been called the impetration, but to
the application ofredemption. Christ
is our piopitiation in the same sense
■as he is The Lord our righteousness,
■M
which also is said to be through jaztfi?
but how he should be a propitiation
through faith to those Who have no
faith, is difficult to conceive.
The truth seems to be this; Christ
is that of which the Jewish mercy*
seat (or propitiatory) was a type.
It was the medium, of mercy and com-
munion with God for all the Worship*
pers of God of old. (Exo. 25: 22.)
Christ is that in reality which ,this
was a figure, but is not, like that,
confined to a single nation. He is
the medium through which all be¬
lievers, of all agei and, nations, have"
access to God, and receive the for¬
giveness oj their sins. All this
grees perfectly with the scope of tfrfc
apostle, which was to encourag'e
backsliden believers against despair* •
Though the apostle is here supposed
to personate the believing Jews, and
that the whole world means the Geir-
tiles, yet, if the contrary were al¬
lowed, the argument would not be^,
thereby affected. Suppose him by
our sins to mean the sins of us ivfto
now believe, whether Jews or Gentiles',
still it amounts to the same thing ;
for then what follows is as if he had
added, 'and not for ours only, but
for the sins of all that ever came of"
shall comej unto God by him. from
the beginning to the end of time.'
The most plausible argurnent us¬
ed by P. is, in my opinion frowi 2.
Cor. 5: 15. on which he observes,
that the phrase they who live is dis-.
tributime, and must, therefore, in¬
clude only a part of the all for whom
Christ died. -It does not appear to
be the design of the apostle to affirm •
that Christ died for- all thuV were
{S3]
dead (for then be ftwet liave^licd for
devils also) but that all were dead
for whom Christ died. The apos¬
tle's words are, If one (lied for all,
then were they all dead; which
proves, both that the condition of
those for whom Christ died wais the
subject of the apostle's main dis->
course, and that the extent of the
term all, in the latter part t>f this
Verse, is to be determined by the
former, and not the former by the
latter. Though our hypothesis sup¬
poses that all for whom Christ died
shall finally live, yet it does not sup¬
pose that they aJL live at present. It
is-(now) bat a part of those for whom
lie died, vi^: such as are called by
grace, who Jive not unto themselves, j
but to him who dted for them and
rose again,'* Thus far, my Broth¬
er Mr. F. has replied to you in re¬
ference to the indefinite language of
scriptures, on whic& you predicate
your general provision, and fullness
of the atonement, for the salvation
ofalj, the human family. And you
must agree that if the texts you bave
selected, j.rove your position, that
those he has classed prove as irtd-
fragably the final salvation of all
menj but if yoy say this is untenable,
then you must give up yours also.
You wilt reflect on this till you heatf
from me again.
I dm, Dear brother,
Yours &c.
JESSE MEItCfK*
LETTER YL
J)ear Brother,
HA/VING stated your scheme of
unlimited atonement; you prpceed
to argue it from sundry scriptural
representations, and you first select,
as most proper and full to your pur¬
pose, the parable of Jthe marrrage-
supper, Luke 14: 16,—24, compar¬
ed with Matt. 22: 1—14. By the
use your make of this supper* you en¬
deavour to show that the design of
God in the atonement is the salva¬
tion of all the hum</n race, and that
lie, therefore, has provided in it a
provision-fully eqijal to that design.
You seem to triumph in the full per¬
suasion that you are thoroughly sus¬
tained in yonr general provisions
and general invitations, by this para-
but examine it and scs,
whether it is not a foundation alto-*
gether too small to bear up the su¬
perstructure, which you have built
upon it.
1. Youh are unhappy in the effort,
to argus and decide a theological
question by a parable. I should have
thought you jvell read enough, to
know that .parables are "not argu*
meofative." The reason is obvious.
The speaker oi a parable always has
some one main j)oinf\xi view, accord¬
ing to which, he throws the differ¬
ent parts of the parable together,
and speaks it, but> a heaver or a rea¬
der may not perceive that main de•
sign of the speaker, and, therefore,
readily mistake its meaning* For
this reason parables are dark say¬
ings, and thay be used very errono
[ 23 ]
Ously, yet seemingly conclusive, to
establish dark things. Surely, if
your sytem of unlimited atonement
had been just, you might have found
a more (terra Jlrma) firm foundation
in the word of God to have sustain¬
ed it.
2. You are truly unfortunate in
the selection of this parable—-there
is nothing iu it sailed to your pur¬
pose* There is evident design and
order, both in the system and move¬
ments of this supper. 1. The King
had just so much room to fill at his
wedding—and according to custom
in such cases, as many wedding gar¬
ments. 2. -Good reason will lead us
to believe that jwst so many persons
were bidden, and no more. 3. The
same reason will forbid us to think*
that any more provision was made,
than was proportioned to the num¬
ber of those bidden- Now when all
things were ready the invitation went
out, *'come ye to the marriagtj."
Not a general but -a special call to
those who were bidden only~ But
they with one consent madfe -excuse
and were placed beyond the possi¬
bility of repentance.- Then, and not
till then., the invitation was extend¬
ed ta others, with this fixed design
in view, that the room might be fill¬
ed- And when the ivedding ivas fin¬
ished-—the house filled the invitation
ceased* There is tro idea that the
whole kingdom was invited—that
all the armies of the king were call¬
ed. And so far from any thing here
like general provision and universal
invitation, it is all special provision
and special and personal calls.
But let us examine your use of
this parable a little further. You
first state it very truly, as laid down
in Luke 14:1G—24. You say, "Hero
we discover that the maker of the
feast, sends out his servants with ex¬
press insftrucious to say to certain in¬
dividuals, come, for all things are
now ready. But they all with ona
consent began to make excuse, and
would not come. When the maker
of the feast heard of their refusal, he
was angry and made a solemn dec¬
laration, that none of them should
taste of his supper." And then you
renew your attack on jthe lim¬
ited scheme (which seems to give
you great annoyance) and say ac¬
cording to it "the maker of the feast
had provided a supper for a few in¬
dividuals, and either to mock others,
or to find a pretext for getting an¬
gry with them, that he might destroy
them, he sends his servants (shall I
say with a lie in their motfth ?) to
say to those for whom not a crumb
was ever provided, "come, for all
things are ready," Here you have
distorted and tortured this-case into
a mould, which Wjouhj better suit
yoUr design of ridiculing a scfiemc
you could not condemn, & which, the
parable simply applied, went to justi¬
fy. You make "the limited scheme"
represent the maker of the feast, as
preparing a supper for a few individ¬
uals, and sending his servants to call
"others." This is not true. The.
servants were restricted to those that
were bidden, till they were rejected?
and then when "others" are taken
into notice, it is not by repeating tho
same invitation, but the 'order runs
thus, "go out quickly into the strceti.
[24 |
jffnd lanes of the city, and bring in
..hither the poor;" and again.
"go out into the highways and hedges,
and compel them to come in, that
my house may be filled" Here is no
getting angry and destroying any
for refusing. How could you predi¬
cate that on ' 'others," which belon¬
ged only to those that were bidden ?
You saj again, "when men make
feasts, the extent of the invitation
is always limited by the quantity of
food provided"—be it so; .and then
the quantity of food provided by the
maker of the supper, was limited to
the number of those hidden, for the
invitation was restricted to thera ;
and after their rejection, to just so
many as would Jill the house. But
you continue, "'they do .not make a
feast for a few individuals in their-
own neighborhood, arnd invite a
whole c6untry or state to come, for
aH things are ready." You add, "neW
ther docs Gop." And I add neith¬
er did the maker of the* feast. He
made a supper for "certain individu¬
als," and invited them—and when
they refused—and were destroyed j
his invitations were governed by the
same rule and number, correspond¬
ing yvuth his room and provision.
And so does God. He restricted his
invitations to certain individuals and
one nation for near 4000 years, and
since, he-has given a general com¬
mission to go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature X,
jet, leaving the direction of the"
practical ministry to his spirit and
Providence, under which, the glad
tidings have been but partially pub¬
lished to this day. PJow then it-"the
extent of the invitation i*s alvvajs If#
mited by the quantity of fotd provi¬
ded," VVhat becomes oi your un¬
limited provision in the atonement,
when determined by the restrictive
dispensations of God ? Can u e sup¬
pose any King, whose subjects have
all universally received the h^dropho-
bian infection and must all be .passed
hope in about sevtnty days, would
make a great supper, of universal
provision, in which Should be a com¬
plete remedy for tike disease of his
people; and out of professed good
will and desire that they might elit
'and live; and yet suffer the greater
part of them to die, without so much
as even hearing that sueh a feast had
been prepared ? But you exclaim
"Will any person presume to palm
such inconsistenny upon the king of
Heaven ?" Yes, my brother, Thou
art the man-i "God" say you, "has-
made a rich and costly feast of un¬
limited provision;" the food of which
contains- life and salvation; out t)f
pure love and good will to the human
family; and yet millions oa millions
of this family, have perished, and
are now perishing for the lack olthe
knowledge, which he ojily can give.
If God has made feuth a feast, with
a desingn to save 4<all tfye kuntan
family", (and he could not have
made it -without design) and has not,
and does not -adopt the means neces*
sary to make it $o known, that each
individual may come to it and eat
and live. Then the imputation of
this inconsistency lies on the divine"
Providence* This I shall leave you,
and all who adopt the system ofgea*
er&l provision, to remove 1
t 25 "1
But it may be asked, what was
"the design of the parable? To Tvhich
I do uot pretend to answer willi po-
sitiveness. Cut surely, it never was
intended to represent the mode and
applications of salvation; because in
that light, it would first indicate that
none were saved till after the death
of Christ, as nobody was invited to
tins supper till the, oxen and failings
were killed; and secondly, that not.
one of the Jews was ever saved, be¬
cause the maker of the supper de¬
clared that none of those who were
bidden should taste of it, and surely
these meant the Jews-.--—but rather it
Was intended to. show the state and
relation of the Jews to the dispensa¬
tion of divine truth, and the impen¬
ding fate of that nation* This sc&ms
to be the principal design in the pa¬
rable of the Vineyard, let out to hus¬
bandmen; of # whom it is said they,
shall be miserably destroyed, and the
vineyard, given to other husbandmen
who shall render hi in tire fruits in
their season. This corresponds with
Paul's representation that through
the fail of the Jews the dispensation
of salvation came to the Gentiles.
There is one more idea. Matt, says
the King was wroth: and sent forth
his armies, and: destroyed those mur¬
derers,j and burned up their qity.
This iixes the meaning to the des¬
truction of Jerusalem, and shows
♦ h&t they did not perish merely be¬
cause they refused to come to the
supper, but as7nurdev-ersl and tho',
the unbelief, which, in the impeni-
tency and hardness of their heart,
led them to reject Christ and his
gospel, filled up their phairacter, and
added some of its darkest shades,
yet by no means constituted that cha¬
racter: for so debased and murderous^
were they in Christ's view, that he
declares it impossible "that a proph--
et should perish- out of Jerusalem."
But it may be farther asked, were
not the blessings of the kingdom of
heaven prepared for them ? Osten¬
sibly they were: but in Christ's ac¬
count (for be knew what he would
do) really and truly for those only,
who finally partake of them.—The
maker of the supper had those only
in view who were bidden; but being
disappointed by them he was led, as
his pnly alternative, to call others,
for whom he had not prepared it i
but it is not so with God. Let us
suppose that this man knew, as God
does, the end from the beginning;
Then, with all the results full in
view, could he have really prepared
his supper for those who he knew,
would not taste of it ? he could not,
unless we could think it possible to
a rational being to undertake to do
what, at the- time, he knew would
never be done! At least, we will
wot attempt "to palm such absurdi¬
ties on God.'2 But if so—why then
does God afford his dispensations of
mercy to those, who-, he knows, will
not accept them and be saved? To
which- it is replied, because he has
other objects to accomplish by those
dispensations than the salvation of
men, Though the salvation of sis*-
ners is a prominent objeet in the dis¬
pensations of God, yet not always
the leading one; else Sodom, Tyer
and Sidon would have had the migh¬
ty works, wraught in them, which
[30]
ivould have produced their salvation;
End from Chorazin, Bethsaida and
Capernaum they would have been
withheld! The reason of this di¬
vine procedure is laid down by Paul.
Horn. 9:22, 23. What if God, wil¬
ling to show his wrath, -and to
make'his power Jcnown, endureth with
much long-suffering the vessels of
wrath filled tq destruction: And that
he mighjt; make* known the riches of his,
glory on the vessels of mercy which hfi
had afore prepared unto glory, there*
fore, hath he mercy on whom he will
have mercy, and whom he will he har■»
deneth.
Let us have Grace, vxhereby w*
may serve God acceptably with revere
cnce and godly fear.
I am yours, &c.
JESSE MERCEfk
LETTER VII.
Dear Brother,
YOU appear to be of opinion, that,
if there is no provision made for the
salvation of all men, in the atone¬
ment, they neither can, nor are
der obligation to repent and believe
the gospol.
That, I am not mistaken in ydur
belief, that the intire ability and-<5b-"
ligation of sinners to repent and
believe, arises from the provi¬
sions of the atonement, or the
d,eath of Christ for themi I will recite
a few passages? from your piece: In
your introduction you complain of
certain men who were constantly
trying to prove to sinners that there
is no provision made for them in the
gospel; from which you draw the
conclusion "consequently they cannot
repent, and are under no obligation
to believe the gospel." On page 7,
in reference to the extent Of the
fcdtnmission Christ gave the apostles,
you ask "Would he command men,
for whom he never died, to repent
and believe?" which you answer
,4JNo: This would be to tequire them
to believe a lie.'" O fie ! On paga
"Christ lias tasted death for eve-
'ry man, and therefore, It is the did
ty of every man to repent and be¬
lieve in him." On page 10, you
say "But if the limited atonement
were correct, they (sinners) would
be under no obligation to obey the
gospel." Oh page 17. on the sup¬
position that Christ has paid no ran¬
som fpr some menr you say "they
jare under np obligation to him."
And lastly on page118, you say
"this view of the atonement brings,
erery sinner under the strongest ob«
ligation to repent and believe.'4 •
FiotnaU whkh. it is evident you
believe, that sin has destroyed ia
man the principle of responsibility;
else he could not be free from obli¬
gation t6 obey God in any case: for
tbe want .of natural ability alone, de¬
stroys moral obligation. If so, then
sin has rendered disobedience no
crime- But la this true? If there
be no obligation on man, as a sinner,
then, there is no duty; and where
there is no dpty, there is no law*rand
[27]
where therg ia no law, there is no
transgression; and where there is no
transgression, there is no blame :
and consequently impenitence and
unbelief are harmless things !
But it is also clear, that you be¬
lieve this ability is restored to men,
universally, by the death of Christ;
for you say, "All sinners are under
obligation to obey the gospel.'* And
if we ask you how ? You say "this
view of the atonement brings every
sinner under th^ strongest obligation
to repent and believe.'^ But the a-
tonement cannot bring a sinner un¬
der the strongest obligation to re¬
pent and believe, unless it gives him
an equally sound ability to do so.
But is it true, that sinners do pos¬
sess from the death of Christ such
ability? If so, would it not have
been bind in God to have left man
to perish, as nn innocent sufferer
rather than to have broiight him
help, with such dreadful responsibili¬
ties, opening Hell's gates much wi¬
der, than Heaven's everlasting doors?
However, it is questionable Whether
sin has the office to alianate, or
grace the power to restore such abil-
ty; if not, the obligation must be es¬
sentially the same under both. It
would be well to observe there is a
natural and a moral ability. The
one constitutes us accountable be¬
ings; the other consists in well dis-
posedness towards'God, our Maker,
and fits us for duty. The loss of
one destroys responsibility and frees
frorjti blame-—the'loss of the other
makes us sinners and subjects us to
guilt and condemnation. On this
subject Fuller writes to the following
effect. "If the nature of this inabil¬
ity were direct, or such as consisted
in the want of rational faculties, bo*
dily powers, or external advantages
it would be natural; and, to whate¬
ver degree it exists, it excuses its
subject of blame, in the account of
both God and man. The law of
God itself requires no creature to
love him, or obey him, beyond bia
strength, or with more than all the
powers which he possesses. If th<*
inability of sinners to believe in
Christ, or to do any thing spiritually
good, were of this nature, it would
undoubtedly form an excuse in their
favour; and it must be absurd to ex¬
hort tjie blind to look, the deaf to
hear,- or the dead to walk. But the
inability of sinnerr is not such as to
induce the Judge of all the earih
(who cannot da other than right) to
abate in his demands. rIt is a fact,
that he does require ^.thein, (antf
that, without paying any regard to
their inability,)- to love him, and to
fear him, and to do all his command¬
ments always. The Mind me com¬
manded to look, the deaf to hear,
and the dead to nrise. (Isa." xlir. IS-.
Eph. v. 14.) If there were no oth¬
er proof than what is afforded by
this single facf, it ought to satisfy us
that the blindness, deafness, and
death of sinners, to that which is
spiritually good, is of a different na¬
ture from that which furnishes an
excuse. There is an essential dif¬
ference between an inability whiclr
is independent ofthc inclination, and
one that is owing to nothing else.
It is equally impossible, no djubt,
for any person to do that which
t -
lia« 110 Ytilrad to do, as to perform
that which surpasses liis natural
powers; and hence it is, that the
■same termk are used in the one case,
as in the other* Those whq^ were
under the dominion of envy aod tna-
lignity couli> not spcalc peaceably;
and those who have eye& full of adul¬
tery, cannot cease from. sin« Hence
'also, the following languages How
can ye, being evil, speak good things'!
-~-*-The natural man receiveth not the
things of the spirit of God, neither
can he fcnow them*~-The carnal mind
is, enmity against God', and is not
subject to the law of God, neither in¬
deed CAN be.— They that are in the-
jfjesh €annqt please God.—No man
can come to me, except the Father
which hath sent me, draw him.. 13ut, -
surely, the plainest and weakest
Christian, jn reading his Bible,, if
hp pay any regard-to what he reads,
rtust perceive a manifest difference
between the blindness t)f Bartimeusr
who was ardently desirous that he
might receive his sight, ^nd that-of
the unbelieving Jews, who closed-
\heir eyes, Jest they should see ; and
between the want of the natural
sense of hearing, and the state of
those who have ears, but hear not.
He that from the constitution of his
nature, is absolutely unable to un¬
derstand, or believe, or love a cer¬
tain kind of truth, must, of necessi¬
ty, be 'alike unable to shut his eyes
against it, ta disbelieve, to reject,
or to hate it. But it is manifest
that all men are capable of the latter;
if must, therefore, follow., that no-
Ahin'j; butthedepravity *>f their hearts
traders them incapable ofthcformcr.
A Moral inability Mipposi* a nafr
ural ability. He who, neVer, in a-
hy state* was possessed qf the pow¬
er of seeing, cannot be said to shut
his eyts agaPnfet the light. It the
Jews had not been possessed of na¬
tural powers# fequal to the knowl¬
edge of Chest's doctrine, there had
been no justice in that cutting ques¬
tion and* answer, ivhy do ye not un>
derstand my speech ? Because ye can*
not hear my word. A total, physical
inability must, of-necessity, super¬
sede a moral one/*
Mr* F* in speaking how disput*
.ants, for false Calvinism, and Ar-
jtoinianisAi are brought together in
their extremes says, "thpy are agreed
in making the grace of Gad necessa¬
ry to the accountableness of sinners
with regard to spiritual obedience#
The one pleads foT"graceless sinners
being free from obligation; the other
admits of obligation, but founds it on
the notion of universal grace*
are agreed, that where there is no
grace there is no duty. But if grace
be the ground of obligation, it is no
more grace, but debt, ft is that
which, if any thing good be requited
of the sinner, cannot justly be with*
held. The one contends, that where
no grace is given, there can he no
obligation to spiritual obedience;
and, therefore, acquits the unbeliev¬
er of guilt in not coming to Christ,
the other argues, that, if man be
totally depraved, and no grace he
given him to counteract his depiavi«
ty; he is blameless ; that is, his de¬
pravity is no longer depravity; he is
innocent in the account of his Jud^e:
consequently, he can ne.Qd no Saviour:
$nd, if justice be done Iiiin, will be
exempt frf»m punishment (if not en-
fitlp<l to heaven) in virtue of his per1-
sonaT innocence* Thus the whole
system of grace is-rendered void:
fend fallen angels, who have not been
partakers of it, must be in a far pre¬
ferable state to that of fallen men,
who, by Christ taking hold of their
jiature, are liable to become blame
worihy ahd eternally loM. But, if
ihe essential powers of the mind be
the samO, whether wn he pure or de¬
praved, and be sufficient to ren¬
der any creature an accountable b6-
ing, whatever be his disposition,
grafce is what its proper meaning im¬
ports—"free favour, dr Javour towards
the unworthy t and the redemption of
Ch l ist", with all its holy and happy
eifects, is what the scriptures repre¬
sent it—necessary lo deliver us from
the state into which we were fallen,
antecedently to its being bestowed.
(See Vof. I. p. 93—9.).
But you may demur, that you do
believe in a state of universal
grace* assisting men's depravity;
but that they are only brought under
obligation to believe from the en¬
couragement held out in the gospel,
and from the fact of interest jn the
atonement, without which faith would
be a lie. But this is only to change'
the position, for the greater absur¬
dity : becausd first, it represents
G<?d as endeavouring to induce men
tmder obligation by allurements,
who, otherwise, were free, and Whom,
as such, he had no powei to com¬
mand; secondly, it renders the whole
scheme of grace mercenary, and rests
& .wholly with the pinner's discretion;
>1
and thirdly, it makes the sinne/s
interest ih the atonement the object
of faith, instead of the revealed truth
of God, contrary to the whole tenor
of scripture*
On this subject. Fuller thus writes'
Vdl. 1* p. 20. "First: Nothing can
be an object of faith, except what
God has revealed in his word; but
the interest that any individual has?
in .Christ, more than another, is not
revealed. God lias no where decla¬
red, concerning anV one of us; as in¬
dividuals, that we shall be saved i
all that he has revealed on this sub*
ject respects us as characters. He
has abundantly promised, that all
who believe in, Ipve and obey him shaljj
be saved; and a persuatiOn, that, if
we sustain these characters, we shall
be saved, is, doubtless, an exercisp
of faith: but whether we-do^ or not,
is &n object, not offaith, but of Con*-
sciousness. Hereby we dct know that
we know him, if we Jceep his command¬
ments. Whoso Tceepeth his word, in.
him verily is (.he love of God perfect'
ed: hereby we know that ion are in
him. IJohnii. 5.
"Secondly: The scriptures always
represent faith as terminating on
something without us; jiamely, On
Christ, and the truths concerning
him; but, if it consists in a persua¬
sion of our being in a stat,e of salva¬
tion, it must terminate, principally,
on something within us; namely,
the work of grace in our hearts, for
to believe mysejfinterested in Christ,
is the same thing a,s to believe myself
a subject of special gracjp: Hence it
is common for many who entertain
this uotiop. of faith, to consider its.
t 3
opposite unbelief ag a, doxibting whe¬
ther we have been Teally cofiwted.
But, as it is the truth and excellence
of the things to be interested in, and
jiot his interest in them, that the sin¬
ner is apt to disbelieve; so it is these,
and not that, on which the faith of
^.he believer primarily terminates.
What relates to personal interest
jmay_, more properly be called hope
thap faith; aod its opposite, /ear,
than unbelief. Thirdly: To believe
ourselves in a state of salvation
(howeyer desirable, when grounded
on evidence,) is far inferior, in its
object, lo saving faith. The grand
* object on which faith fixes, is the
glory of Christ; and not the happy
condition we are in, as interested in
him. The latter, doubtless, affords
great consolation; and the more vve
discover his excellence, the more ai>
dkntly shall we desire an interest in
lim, and be the mo*e disconsolate,
ivhile it continues a matter of doubt.
Bnt, if we be cohcerned only^iot our
security, our faith is vain, and we
.are yet in our sins. As that repent¬
ance which fixes merely on the con¬
sequences of sin, as subjecting us to
misery, is selfish and spurious; so
that faith which fixes taerely on the
consequences of Christ's mediation,
as raising us to happiness, is equal¬
ly selfish and spurious. It is the pe¬
culiar property of true faith, to en¬
dear Christ; unto you that believe
fiE is prebious. I Peter ii.~7.'*
But it is evident your sentiment'
is,.tbat an interest in the death of
Christ is the object of that faith,
which is "God's positive command"
lM*e gospel^ atjd, that on tho> gup-
J]
position the atonement is limited,
men "Would be under no obligation
to obey the gospel," and hence you1
add, "shoulcLthey dare believe that
Jesi/s died to save them, they would
believe a lie V9 But if God has nd
where positively commanded men to
believe that Christ "died to savft
them,"" then, your premiss being un*
established, your conclusion is pre*
posterous. But if an interest in the
Saviour's death, be the object of sa«
ving faith, and God ha& command¬
ed all men to believe it, then it is a
truth, and th6irs, whether they be¬
lieve it or not; but if it is to lie corw
sidered "a fullness in-the atonement0
and becomes theirs on* its being be¬
lieved, then faith in the first instance
must be f*a ILej" because that can¬
not be true, as the object of faith,
which is predicated on it. But whe¬
ther rt be the one, or the other; I
must reave yoU to explain how \\ isf
that God should have provided for
all men, so rich a treasure, even life
.forevermoret in his Son, and, with *
all the pieansf-at hand, not to have
caused 6"the glad tidings of great
joy" to have been brought individu¬
ally to them; or, that an interest in
Christ's deathman b© the object of
the faith, which brings the evidence
of it, without making tliat faith
l?e," in its first Bet f
I am respectfully yours,
JESSE MERCER*
[ 31 1
LETTER Yin.
Dear Brother*,
YOU "argue, that, if tlie pro¬
visions, that is, if the atonement be
limited, then, must the invitations
be just as limited." And again,
you lay it down as a certain rule,
that, "the invitation is always limit¬
ed by the quantity of food provided."
Now, taking it for granted (as you
do,) that the invitations of the gos¬
pel are in fact unlimited, you ?eem
to establish your position, that the
provisions of the atonement are £o
too; but taking the facts, as they lie
under divine Providence, with the
above positions, and one of two re¬
sults, is irrefragaDIy true: either,
that God has thwarted, in the limi¬
tation of his dispensations, the uni¬
versal benevolence of his designs; or,
the atonement* in its provisions,, is
limited v you admonish those, who
favour the limitation of design, ip
the death of Christ, to be careful,
Jest their superstructure, being lar¬
ger than their foundation, should be
in danger of falling; while you ex¬
pose the Saviour to all the shame
and contumely against which he
guarded his disciples—that of laying
an unlimited foundation without be¬
ing able to build proportionally there¬
on ! You must agree, that, either
God ha3 been more benevolent in
the provisions, than ia the applica¬
tions of mercy; or that the indefinite
terms used in the gospel are consist¬
ent with a limited design in the a-
tonement. Which may be exempli¬
fied by the terms used in the second
invitation to the marriage-feast.
And as-many as ye 'shall find, BIl> fa
the marriage, but this is in per*
feet consistency with the original
design that the house might be full.
I will here again refer you to Mr.
Fuller, Yol. 1. p. 315. "That there
is a consistency between the divine
decrees and the free agency of men,
I bplieve: but whether I can account
_ for it, is another thing. Whether it
can be accounted for at all, so as to
enable u^ clearly to comprehend it,
I cannot tell. Be that as it may; it
does not distress me: I believe in
both, because both appear, to me,
to be plainly revealed. Of this X
shall attempt to give evidence hi
what follows:
J. The time of man's life is appoint
ted of God. Is there not an appoints
ed lime to man upon earth ? Are not
his days also like the days of an hire¬
ling ? His_ days are determined, the
number of his months are with thee,
thou hast appointed his bounds that he
cannot pass. All the days of my ap*+
pointed time will I wait, till my change
come. Job vii. 1. xiv. 5.14. Andyet
men are exhorted to use means fo
prolong their Jives, delictually do use
those means, as ifcthere was no ap¬
pointment in the case. God deter*
mines to send afflictions to individu¬
als and families; and he may have
determine J that those afflictions shall
terminate in death; nevertheless, it
is God's revealed will, that they
should use means for their recovery,
as much as if there were no determ¬
ination in, the affair. Children were
Exhorted to honor and obey their pa-
u
Jfehts, that their (lays might te fang
in the land whicl* the Lord their God
had given them. He that desired
life, find iQved majiy tlays, was ex¬
horted to Jteep his tongue from evil,
fipd his lips from speaking guile.
JSxo.xx? %2. Psot xxxiy. i?r If by
neglect pr excess, any fine come to,
■what is called, untimely end, we
jyenot to suppose either that God is
Disappointed 01* the sinner excnlpar
ted.-
IIS Our pprt{on in this life, is re¬
presented as coming under the di¬
vine appointment. It is $ cnp, a lot,
a*) heritage- Barrid spake of his por¬
tion as laid put fo? him by line* The
lines, says he, are fallen, to me. in
■pleasant places*, vea, I have a goodly
'heritage. Psa. xvi.5,6, The times
before ftpp©.iated are determined, and
the bounds of our habitation ase fj&-
?d. It iia a satisfaction to an fiujijr
hie mind, that his times and concerns
are in God?s hand, and that he |ias
the choosing oj Ms iqhcritafice. Acts
xvii. 26« Psa. ^xxi. 15. xlvii. 4,
And yet, in all the concerns of life,
Ave a,re Exhorted to act with discre¬
tion, as much as if there were no di¬
vine Providence.
The purposes pf God extend to the
litter part of our portion, qs well as
the sweet. Tabulations are things
to which we ar$ ^aid to hie appointed*
Nor is it a mere general determina¬
tion: of all the ills thgjt b6fel an af¬
flicted Job, not one came unordffined.
Cutting and complicated as they
were, he calmly acknowledges this ;
aud it was a matter of relief tinder
his trouble,- "llepcrformeth the- thing
thaf 14 Mppointed for me; and many
31
f sucK things arc with hut. !SVverthc\-
less, there arc things which have a
tentfepcy to fill up this tup with eith*
er happiness ot misery; and yet, men
are exhorted to pursue the onej and
to avoid the Pther, the same as if
there were no tfivine purpose whate*
ver in ttie affair.
God appointed to give Pharaofr
and Sihpri up to their own heart's
lusts, which would certainty tormina
ate in their destruction; apdyet the?
ought ench tP have accepted of tfya
messages of peace which God sent
them by the ^iand. of Moses. It i$
allowed, that, in whatever instan-
cesi God has determined to punish Or
ny ofthe sons pf men, either iu thi$
world or that to come^ it is entirely
pq the foresight of evil. It was so in
all the punishments that befel Pha-?
raoh and ^iho«1 But there wps 110^
only the exercise of punitive justk%
discovered 40 these instances* hut,
as tvelU a mixture - of sovereignty^
If the question he asked, why ,di4
God )py,nish these men? The an-f
^swer is, pn account pf their sin.
Pilt if it b$ asked, why did he pun¬
ish thern Trather than others, in them»
setves equally wicked I The answer
must he resolved into me id sove¬
reignty, He that stopped a perse¬
cuting Saul irj his vile career, cquld
hav« turned the h^s£rt of a Pharaoh}
but he is debtor ta none; he hath
said, he will have mercy on whom he
will have mbrty. The apostle Paul
considers the destruction of Pharaofy
as not merely an instance of justice,
but likewise of sovereignty; (Rom.*
iXk 17.) and conclude^, from his ex¬
ample, therefore hatft he piercjj 97I
[ 33 1
ithotix lie will Jiavfi mercy, and whom'
he will, he hardcneth: which3I sliould
suppose, can intend nothing less
than jeaving thepi to the hardness of
their hearts; 'J? he 19th verse, which
immediately follows, aiul contains
the objections of that day, is so near¬
ly a kit} to the objections of P. that
I wonder he should uot perceive it,
pnd learn instruction by it,
III. Events which imply the evil
actions of men come under the divine
appointment. The visitations with
which Job was afflicted were of God's
sending. lie himself knew this, and
acknowledged it. And yet this did
?iot hinder but that the Sabeans and
Chaldeans,acted as free agents in
What they did, and jhat it was their j
duty to have done otherwise. Assy¬
ria was God's rod to Judah, and the
staff in their hand* was his indigna¬
tion. And yet Assyria ought not to
have oppressed Judah. Pride, <;o-
vetousness, and cruelty, wer,e their
motives} for all which they were
palled to account, and punished.
Isa. x. 5—14,
Our Lord was delivered according
Jo the determined council and fore¬
knowledge of God, His worst ene¬
mies did nothing to him but what
his han& and" his counsel determined
before to be done. And yet this did
not hinder but tliat with wicked hands
they crucified and sle$v him; That
the contrary of all this vv^ their duty;
and that the invitations and expostu¬
lations of our Lord with theft* were
founded iu propriety. God did. not
determine to give Judas a heart to
forbear betraying his master, when
Tempted by the lure of gain: but on
the contrary, he determined lo give1
hi in up to his own heart's, lust. The
son of man, in being betrayed, went
as it \V£is determine</{ ^nd yet there
was a wp (3u«? to, and denounced a*
gainst, the liorrid perpetrator, not¬
withstanding, (Acts ii. 23. iv. 28»
Luke x.\ ii. 22.)
Exclamations may abound; but
facts are stubborn things. It is
likely we may be told, 'If thijs be t,!je
case, we need not be uneasy abput
it; for it is as God would have it.'
"If (ijod has ordained itr why should
we oppose it?" But feuch a mode of
objecting, as observed before, tho*
of ancient, is not of very honorably
extraction. If it be not .identically
the same whidi was made to the a-
postolic doctrine, it is certainly very
near a kin to it. I can discern no
difference, except in words: Thou
■ wilt say then, why doth he yet FJNJ>
fault ? For %vho has resisted His
will ? To wliich it was thought
sufficient to reply, Nay, but O mant
who art t\iou that repliest against
God?
( After all, surely, there is a wide
difference between an efficient and £.
permissive determination in respect to
the existence of moral evil. To as¬
sign the former to the divine Beins:,
I
is to make him the author of sin;
but not so, the latter. That God
does permit evil, is a fact that can¬
not be disputed: and, if we admit the
perfection of his moral character, it
must be allowed to be consistent
with his Righteousness, whether wo
can fully conceive of it, or not. But,
if it be consistent with the righteous¬
ness of God to permit evilj- it caniiet
[34J
he otherwise to determine so to do,
unless it be -wtoug to determine to
do what is right,"
To the ,&ba.re I will add two other
lases as illustrating tb# same fact.
Ifhe one is the case of the ^ntidelu-
Tians. Jt is evident, to Any careful
deader, that God had determined
^heir utter destruction for 130 years
before the flood came upon them.
This the following passages prove,
And the Loup said, My spirit shfl.ll
net always strive vrith man, for thai
foe also is jle^h', yet his days shall be a
hundred and twenty years, Afyd. God
said unto Noah, the end of all
flesh is come before me;Jor the earth
is filled with violence through therm ,•
and behold, I will destrqy ttfelji
with the earth* And behold i* even
J, do Bring a flood of tmtefs upon the
earth, tq destrov all flesh,
lehertin is the breath of life, jropi un¬
der heaven. But with thee will J Es¬
tablish my covenant; cmd thou shalt
come into the arJc, than, and iJiy sons,
and thy wife, and thy softs' wives w\th
thee. (Gen, vi. 3, 7, 13, 17, 18.)l*
These tests prove, that witb the de¬
termination to destroy all flesh, was
accompanied a purpose tQ save Noah
and his family alonei and yet Christ
t>y his spirit, went in the ministry
ofNoab, andprt ached, ta them: and,
cfoubrfess, it was their duty to have
repented at the preaching of PjToah.
Bat there could have been no propri¬
ety in sending them & preacher of
righteousness-^ unless exhortations &
warnings are consistent w^th a deter¬
mination to destroy. The other case
is that of the Jews, in the Saviour's.
days. It had l>een- told, .hund¬
reds of years UeTbre, that the /ewyi
of that generation tvould reject the
Messiah, and be destroyedui their un*
belief tind hardness of he&rtj an<l
therefore John says they £oULD NOT
believe, John X». 39, also read 40.
And yet Christ preached to them,
and commanded them to repent and
■believe the gospel, Now then, un»
legs Christ was inconsistent, th#
fact is established 3 that it is -consis-
ent to address sinners ns such, and
call uppn them to repent and believe,
that they may be saved, just as if
tjiere were no purposes of Godj at
4x11, in relation to their final destiny,
I will clpse this abstruce siihject
in the words of F. "I confess, these
things may look like contradictions*
They are, doubtless, profound sub¬
jects j a«d, perhaps, as some have
expressed it, we shall never be fully
ahle, in tJho present state* to exr
plain the link that unites the ap-»
poiutments of God with the ireo
actions of men; but there is such
a link: The fact is revealed abun4»
antly in scripturej and it does not
distress me, if, in, this matter, I
have, all my life, tp walk by faiths
and not by sight."
J am most respectfully you^*s,
JESSE ^EKCER*
4
4
{ $5 3
LETTER IX.
fiear Brother,
THE universality of divine oper-.j
ations, you say, "is readily proven
from the word of God;" and so your
Universal scheme of atonement es¬
tablished. But did the texts you
produce, prove your point, (of which
they appear to me, to fall very short)
yet your scheme would not be es¬
tablished thereby; unless it could be
proven that all those operations
were of saving intent. Indeed, you
treat of them, as if they were so; and
yet, you admit, that after the spirit
'has operated a conviction, on the
hearts of men, of sin, righteousness
and judgment, they may "force their
passage to the flames." This strange
representation lias brought to my
mind the lines of a modern Poet, in
reply to one of aear akin to yourself.
" If thy fallacious scheme prevail,
" Wisdom roust err, & mighty power may fail;
14 Grace may deceive tHe person where 'tis
wrought, !
"And all thai God has said may stand for
naught i"
You seem to_o, to admit of no sjweial
divine operations: consistency with
your declaration, that there "is no
Specialty in the atonement," requires
this^ The view, you give of them in
the Antideluvians, excites in my mind I
no other idea4 but that God was try¬
ing to save them; which is to repre- ;
sent him as, not only trying to do,
what he knew would never be^ done;
kit what he had determine^ other¬
wise; but surely, you-never meant
«'to palm such inconsistency upon the
King of Heaven!" Here I shall
i^uotc fcom yow professed) but much
abused patron. Mr. F. on the rft*
■ sistible and irresistible influences of
the Iloly Spirit, says, ''The influ¬
ence of the word upon the mind, see¬
ing that word is indited by the Holy
Spirit, may be called, in an indirect
and figurative sense, the influence
of the Iloly Spirit. It was with this
kind pf influence that he strove with
the Antidiluvians in the ministry of
Noah, &e. (Gen. Vi. 3 ) and was
resisted by the Israelites. That is,
they resisted the messages which the
Holy Spirit sent to them by Moses
and the Prophets; and their succes¬
sors did the same by th<j messages
sent them by Christ and his apos¬
tles. (Acts vii. 51.) And thus lh»
admonitionsof parents, the events of
Providence, and the alarms of con¬
science, as well as the word preach-
.ed and written, may each, in an
direct sense, be said to be the stri¬
vings of the Holy Spirit. This in¬
fluence ought to suffice tp bring us to
repent of sin, and believe in Christ,,
and. were it not for the resistance
that is made to it4 would „fyave suck
effectj but, through the perverse*
ness of the human heart, it never has»
It is a great sin to resist and over¬
come it; but it is such a sin as every
man, while unregenerate, is guilty
of. From the depravity or perverse?
ncssofthe human heart arises the
necessity of a special and effectual
influence of the Holy Spirit. The
influence before mentioned may movs,
the soulj but it will not bring it home
to God. When souls are effectually
turned to Godj it is spoken cf as the
! 3
Tfifa ilt of a specfat cfc£rtion of Al-
t uglify power. God icho cOlHaiAN-
Jdt.n the light'to shine out t>f darfc-
tocssj hath shiried in our hearts, TO
<JTVE the light Of the knowledge tf,
the glory of God in the fact of Jesus
Christ.—Thy people SHALL be will-
in r 7n the day of thy towER*"—-I will
put my law in their inward parts, and
write it in their hearts; and I WILL
le their God, and they shall be my
people:1 (Vol. I. p. 260-*l, 2.) To
the same effect he says (p. 89.) "But
God might send his son into the
world to save men,. rather than an¬
gels; so he may apply his sacrifice
to tlhe salvation of some men, and
not to others. It is a fact, that the
greater part of those who have heard
it disregard it; and that those who
brlieve are taught to ascribe not on-
1)/ their salvation, but faith "itself,
through which it is obtained, to the
free gift of God. And, as the ap¬
plication of redemption is solely dn
recteel by sovereign wisdom; so, like
every othef event, it is the result of
previous design. That which is ac¬
tually done was intended to be (fane.
Hende tbfe salvation of those that are
saved is described as the end which
the Saviour had in view: He gave
himself FOR US, that he might redeem
•Us from all iniquity, and pwify to
himself a peculiar people, zealous of
good works(Titus ii. 14.) And in
his second letter to Agnosias lie says
"1 maintain that it is owing to di¬
vine agency, and to that atone, that
one sinner, rather than another, be¬
lieves in Christ." And in the same
letter speaking of Mr. Taylor's no¬
tion of general operations, he says
*1
"Ofthis general senv*, or meAiW,
I can make no meaning at all* It
certainly docs not ascribe the differ-^
ence between onS sinrter and anotli^
er to God, but to tbd <5rcatur<*; and
this is the very spirit alid tendency©#
his whole system* which ought td
sink it in the esteem of every hum-*
bfe, considerate mind." Andifyoii
believe in the Operations "of the spi¬
rit of Go3 oil the hearts of all men,'^
individually* then we give tip as a
gross Armiiiiarr or a rank Universal*
ist—we think your argumeht teudd
to the latter*.
iJut, I will now call your aften*
tion to another part of your piece 3
To the question, relative to your de¬
nying the imputation of srn and right¬
eousness, you answer; MI have at*
Nearly said, that Jesus Christ was a
sin-offering; and I ftow say, that e-
very believer views the Saviour int
this light, as his sin offering; & that
he, by faith, is enabled to appropri¬
ate the righteous merits of the Sa¬
viour to himself, by which be is jus¬
tified before God." My dear Bro¬
ther, I am constrained to exclaini,
''Was ever such an empty-answer seen?"
You ought to blush and be &shame4
of it before the Lord.
To say the least of it; in this an*
swer you place the believer, in God's
office; faith, in-the stead of grace;
appropriation, in the place of imput¬
ation; righteous merits, in Ireirof
righteousness; and give-to the be¬
liever the rare work of justifying him-
self before iuodi But all this your
scheme required of you, rather than
rthe sentiments of your heart. You
could not get your4mp*i&Qnal atone*
.
merit, along with a frank -acknow*
lodgement of imputation—your va^ue
notion ofsatisfaction made for nobody
i+» order that you might wield it round,
and rr.ake it applicable to every body-,
would not, nop could not square with
fuch a, uni<jn, between Christ and
those for wlioni he diet}, as imputa¬
tion of sin and righteousness invol¬
ved. Tis true Sir. F.-contends for
the atonement," as made to- -law and
justice; as satisfaction- for. a crime,
tltid not as payment of a *Iebt<? and
that it constitutes the gospttl-gro'und
©« wlrich God cfcu be just and est
tend pardon to anysinnej^ whom he
will; but he-never thought of deny^
ing imputation, or even substitution.
He maintained such a union between
Christ and those* who are finally sa-
▼cdf as secured their salvation in
particular. But he shall speak for
fiiinself. Vol. Lv. 184. lie says,
*lThe ticrctYine of justification by faith
in -Ofisist Jesus without the works of
the law,' is-iil itself exceedingly hum¬
bling; for it is no other than God'sr
justifying the ungodly^ or accepting*
to favour a believing sinner, net for
any worthiness in him, bat for the"
sake of his righteousness in whom he
beiieveth—justification is ascribed to
faith, not as a virtue, Avhidh Gad
consented to accept for righteousness
instead of perfect obedience, but as
receiving the rightousness of his son.
Justification by faith, and being
*"mado righteous by th« obedience Of
Christ," are the same thing* This
righteousness *is imputed to us, or
accounted by the Law-giver of the •
world in his treatment of us, as if
ft were qui* o\vil. JNot that it. vepMy
is okr own; for then we should c<?its£
to be guilty and unworthy beings s
but as Christ was "made sin fof us/'
though in respect to his real charac¬
ter he "knew no sin;" so we are
"made the righteousness of God iu
him," though in respect to ©wr reql,
character we are "worthy of death,''
And in the^onver-sations on imputa-*
^tion (p. 83.) lie says- "There arft
two1 things belonging to the^in-oifei^
ing.- First: The imputation of the
sins of the people, signified by the
priest's laying his Jiands upon the
head of the animal, and -confessing
over it their traHSgres^ionsj and
which is called "putting upoiS
it:" that is, it was counted ^n tha
divine admioistration, as if the ani~
mal had been the sinner, and the on¬
ly si51 tier ©f the nation# Secondly :
Offering it in sacrifice, or "killing it
befoie-the Lord for an atonement."
.Now the phrase made, siny in 2 Cor.
y< 21. appears to refer to the first
step-in this process, in order to-the
last. It is expressive of what waff
preparatory to Christ's suffering!
death, just as our being made right*
eviw\e9$ expresses yvliat was prepa¬
ratory to God's bestowing upon us
eternal liic. But the term mnde is
not to be taken literally; for that
would cohrcy the idea of Christ's be¬
ing really the subject of moral evil*.
It is'expressive >of a'divine -const'itHy
tio7iT by wliich our Redeemer, with
his own consent, stood in the sin¬
ner's- place, as though he hud been
himself the transgressor; just as the
sin.-offering was aecoutited to have
the sins «f the people "put upojr its
head;" with thisdiiiereute; ihnt wq&
£3S]
t>n!y a shadow, but this went real!)
to fake away sin." Iff page 85con¬
tinues Fw there is a passage in Cal¬
vin's bistitutes, which so fully ex¬
presses my mindL that I will read it.
**The chastisement of our peace wias
laid upon 'Mm. fie was smitten of
his Father for ®ur crimes, and brui¬
sed^ for our iniquities: whereby mb
meant that tie was ^pnt in the stead
of the wicked, as surety and pledge,
yea, and m the very guilty person
himself, to sustain and liear away-
all the punishments that^ should have
teen laid upon them, save only thatj
he eould not be liolden of death-
Yet do -we^hot mean that God was
et any time either his enemy, or ao-
gijy. with- him. For how could he
be angry with his beloved Son, up¬
on whom his mind, rested? Or how
could Christ by his intercession ap¬
pease his Father's wrath towards o-
thers, if full of hatred* he b&d been
incensed against himself?" Oo the
'Subject of substitution} lie Says page
91. '*1 have no cotoseiousaess of
Having.ever called the doctrine of
substitution in question. On the
contrary, uiyhope of saWatiun re&ts
upon it.
I have always considered the dce¬
ntal of this doctrine asheing the es¬
sence of Socihianism. I could not
have imagined that any person whose
hope of acceptance with God "rests,
twt on any goodness in himself, but
entirely on the righteousness -of
Christ, imputed \o htm cts ij it weve'
his own, would have been accounted
to disown his substitution* .But, if
I speak of the death of Christ, irre-
frftective of the purpose of .the Fatljpr,
i and the Son, as to the objects tvho
should be saved by it; referring
merely to what it is in itself sufficient
for, and declared in the gospel to be
adapted to> 1 should think 1 answer¬
ed the question in. a scriptural way, in
saying, it Was fo* sinner$t as sinners.
But if I hav6 respect to the purpose
of the Father in giving his Son. to
die, and to the design of Christ in
laying down his life, I should answer
it was for k is. elect a»/y.
If the substitution of Christ con¬
sists. in his dyingjfoTUpy instead o/oth-
ers, that they- should not die, this,
as comprehending the designed end
to bq answered _ by lus death, is
strictly applicable to none but the e-
l#ct: fori whatever ground there ij
for sinners, as sinners, to believe
and be saved, it never was the pur¬
pose ojf design-of Christ to impart
faith to any othen than, those who
were given him of the Father. &s
Christ laid not his life down but by
covenant:- as the eleet were give**
him to be. the purchase of his blood*,
or the fruitof the travail ofiiis soul*
h& had respect, in all he did and suf¬
fered, to this rocompenseof reward,'
Their salvation was the jof that was,
set before him. It was for the cov¬
ering of their transgressions that h&
became obedient unto dearth* To
?Am lug substitution was the same
in effect -as if their sins had by num¬
ber and measure been literally impar¬
ted to hinj> I "am .not aware that
any principle, which I imbibe, is in*
Ctfnsistenfc-wifh Christ's laying down
his life % covenant, or with bis
being the surety of that covenant
pledging himself for the certain ac*
[30]
fcomplishm&nt of "whatever he un¬
dertook; as that all that were given
him should come to him, should not
be lost, but raised ujt at the last
day, and be presented without spot,
and blameless. Ail this I consider
as included in the design of the Fa¬
ther and'the Son, with respect to the
application of the titonevnent."
F4.OU1 the above it appears, that
Mr. F. is not so opposed to Dr.
Gill as many have thought. All
that F. contends for, as to the infin¬
ite worth of the atonement* is. com¬
prehended in Gill's view of the
scheme of redemption. What GirL
places in the covenant transactions,
and considers-as^?ft&£ and done inr the
eternal tnind, F. resolves into ilth&
sovereign pleasure? of God, with a
.regard to. the application of the a^
tonement; Chat is} with regard; xQ
THE PERSON^ tb whom it sTiatl %eap*-
pHcd." What then is the difference?
A mere shade—a-difference only m
the race?lis oppcrandi of the gfeat plan*'
They arc in perfect harmony in the
totality of human depravity-—the ne¬
cessity and efficiency of divine influ¬
ence—-the fulness and sufficiency of
the covenant provisions for, an'dthc
certain application -of them to the
salvation of the elect only,—The dif*
feren.ee then,, betwixt them is only
speculative; the agitation of which
is much better talculafced to promote
those oppositions of scie&dt falsely so,
called^ or that philosophy and vain
deceit, from which. Paul go much-
dissuades, rather than Godly edify**
ing,
I am respectfully yonrsr
JESSE MERCER^
LETTER X.
Dear Brother,
IN .this, my closing- letter, I pro¬
pose to notice several particulars^
wherein you appear, to me, to be-
inconsistent either,. ^vith your own
scheme, or the truth itself.
I. Your scheme of atonement ap¬
pears to me k> be impugned bjryoUr
whole argument for its extent. If I
understand the representation you
give of the atonement's being "made
in view to the law, and to be con¬
sidered a full satisfaction of it."
Then it was-made to criminal justice-,
and not the payment of a debt, and,
of course, not made in reference to
any particular number of persons y
but for sinners, as such; and that
personality of interest wholly de¬
pends 011 the application: op, if I
conceive of it," in your view, it is just
like the provision of mercy in the-
state* That is-* the law proyidos,
for the pardon of criminals, indefin-
itcli/f but leaves it in the power of
the executive authority, to dispense
it to whom he will, in which dispen¬
sation alone, the persons benefited
can be counted.. So then, the full¬
ness of the atonement is to be c5-
jectivcly viewed, as being ample pro«
vision for the .pardon of sinners as^
such; and there is no calculating how
manyt or how feiv, it wa$ rnadtj fory
[40]
astlihf 1<rs wholly under the sove¬
reign "will of God,, in the application
cfit; hence it appears, at once, that
your" argument is in favour of ar»
uniimitcd application, since the a-
tonemenfr cannot he either limited ox
•unlimited, enfy in its a-pplicatioo; as
the benefits of a fountain can be had
scriptures havcjivrct down between
the righteous a»<l the wkkrri; and
subjects you to the severe rebuke Q.f
the rulers of"Jerusalem. Jlerprie.tfi,
have violated my law, mid have pro-
farted my holy things: Tr*ty haoe put
no difference between the lt<>ty and
profane, jnehher have iluy shelved tM
.only iti its user or of a-ransom-j^'icef difference between tha unctya/l and th^
Gletm. (Eze. 2£: 2§.) This is, a
wry serious charge!
II. The mode of your putting to¬
gether, and treating the texts, yo«
have quotecf, te prove your unlimited
scheme, forces .irnjunersalism upon
«a<?. True, yott denyj ^thdt your
•view ofatoncmcjit'"favours-
redemption/' -because redemption iff
the effect of atonettient, £nd that
"none would be saved* but tl ose to,
whom the application is made,"
Put, it should T3eeqr that you have
been all the while (unVnawiiigly)
pleading for an unlimitedjapplication^
rather than of-atonement, which ad¬
mits of no such argument, and there*
fore, pleading muqh stronger for
universal salvation, than general
provision. Thus: <*.pd so loved -the
world (even, all the race oj m&n)
that he gave his fcjily begotten son
(with this specific dctiignj that tha
world (event $11 the. race- of man)
•through him might be .safed. 4,Ve
come, at once, to the conclusion,
that, either God wiil -be crossed in
his love, and disappointed iitbis pur¬
pose, or*ALX. th$ race. #f man will be
saved: bi^t as the &rmer cannot bp*
the latter is the only possible result,
therefore, ALL men must le saved*
Should you reply, that (berc -are o-
ther texts, with.»luch/Aw will ^0
in its appropriation. Thus you are
at War with your Self; for to &rgute cm
Unlimited against a limitedhemejof
atonement, is to fidnvit the calcula¬
ting scheme, which you so frequent¬
ly deny? and tht»s, if year scheme
t»9 true, your -argument is absurd ?
and if j*oar argument "be true, youir
scheme is f«*lse. *J5ut this i» not all:
-You represent the atonement pre¬
cisely the same "to all the unbelievers
in the Wol'ld;^ as-^to tfre believersj"
nay, more, as applying-"^ the same
sense," to all those "dead and in
JiellK as to those "dead and in h&av-'
en, before the Saviour died T" This
is the same as to say, that all who
havo been hanged,, since the previ*
siofc was made, in the law, to re¬
prieve criminals!, were, just as much
interested in th^t provision, as those
■who were reprieved; which is o/^-
Jim agairjst fact, reason, common
sense and truth. It makes the ap¬
plication of the atonement a Jmlity*,
<and»"puts the believer and the unbe¬
liever upon the--same footing; and
as it loaves unbelievers exposed tfto
the impending storm, which "will
hurst With fury upon their lieadls it*
ihe awful day of accounts," So. it
fullest leave all believers equally ex¬
posed to wrath ! Besides, it-removes
|bat line of diflerencc, which the
[411
Htftee; then we say, truej anfl those
ti?xts you ought to have quoted, that
we roi^ht 4iave had the whole truth
befoi e us.
In your usual strain of latitudina-
rianism, you state t/jat "God is not
willing that any sinner should per¬
ish," hut tliat "he has sworn it in his
pUasure that the wicked turn and
live:"" bui you admit that, "suc)i is
the enormity of the- human heart,
that it will not submit to G-od's gov-
-k . w.
ernmeftt and grace." AVe then in¬
quire* Uow can any be saved? To
this yon answer, ^bv the sovereign
grace of God alone." Well then, if
the only hope js sovereign pleasure,
all must be saved; ibr according* to
your doctrine} it is not the will of
Crod that any sinner should perish?
nuy4 "he has sworn by his own life"
that it is his jjjeasure that they all
tutn and livei* Here is universal
palyutiou again* But this is uot the
worst of it; in two instances you"
• have giveH us some most extraordi¬
nary views. Jn 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15,
you represent the apostle as "argu¬
ing the universality, or fullness of the
atonement, from the universality of
moral depravity, or tj^ath." J3y
this rule the atonement extends fQ
devils; for all fallen spirits are de¬
praved beings, and under moral
death: This agrees with the other
instance, that js> that "the atone."
inent appears, in jts extent, to bo
unlimited* and thurt? ip no specialty
in it." Now then, if the atonement
is without Iwit, and the extent of
moral depravity Js its scriptural
bounds, then, all the fallen angels
are within its merciful grasp; for to
restrict it to fallen men would be a
limit and a specialty, but you sa) it
has neither, so then, both fallen men
and angels may be saved". But,
surely, you will retract both, and
acknowledge the one, an erroneous
exposition, and the other, untenable,
But perhaps you may object and sajr,
you had no design, or thought of ex¬
tending the atorrement to fallen an¬
gels, I admit ft-vyou have Said so;
nor fio I think, you really intended*
or believe the legitimate Conclusion
of many of your positions. Let th»
fotlowiug speak for itself. You say,
For my own part, I have no hesi¬
tation in believing, that were it not
for the atonement and intercession
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the wrath
* It may be asked, flow is it, that God declares, by so s ilemn trn asseveration, that, he has no
pleasure is the usatu of Ihn wicked, and yet that all the wicked uiill he destroy! (See Eze. 153: 1 lv
.Psa. 14G: 20.) to which it is replied; that while God exercises aJudicial, he entertains no real pica-
6ure in ilie death of the u-zektd. The declaration may be to show thai God did not design the d««
struction, but the reclaim of his backslidden tsraeL (See .f?r.-8: 14, 21, 22.) Or the literal may be
%imifive of the true Fsrael of God. tvho by riaturk,ar&chUdtt.n of wrcdli even as others; yet, utl of
whom Cud will have lo be saved and not die. (See-tsa. 45; 25. Kom. 11, ~2rt.) or rather it may te
designed to encourage penitent sinners agaiust theis feairs. The contexts leads to -this idea; anU- a.l
the promises of God assure us he is not wiHing" that any penitent sinner gfauuld per«h, but turn to
Jiim and] ive. .
Tl>e same may be said ef 2 Peter 3; 9. rn which text, vs-word is the key-word. If by which
(til the,human-race can be meant tiiert universal salvation will b« established, ratlj.ee thrtn gtiicrtr/pro¬
vision; but since there i? neither promise nor long suffering in God towards all nien individually Jest
any 61' tliem should perish apd net come to the know ledge of the truth, it cannot so uitan: bui it it
intends the whole family of Gotf, who are his as vyell befofe repentance and faith g.s afterwards, then
all is easy (See 1 Peter i: 2.) And the text will read thus, with its ellipses "The LohI is not slack
concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us-wwd, aot ■willing'
4h;it i^ny of v* should perish, but that all of us should come to repcutance." *
[42]
©f God would be poured out immedi¬
ately upon every transgressor, and
he would be fixed, at once, ^ without
hope of merc$—but Christ has ta¬
ken human nature, and in that na¬
ture died for ike human family] he
|»as risen from the dead, and is now
at. t%e right hand of the FATHER, ma¬
king1 intercession for the human fami¬
ly, and through his intercession they
are spared, and kept^out of hell!''
Youimmediately argue that "Christ
died in the same sense" for those,
who wer.c dead and in hell, before
his death* <4he (fid for others."
Wow then, <k> you helieve that when
Christ ascended and ma^ Intercession ^
for the purchase of his death, {hat,
those„who were in hell, were then
delivered T By the same rule, that
those sinners? who were yet alive,
were "kept out of helly' by htedeath
and intercession,' those dead apd in
Jielh myst have been redeemed, or
his intercession must have keen of
no avail! J)o you believe it ? But
the intercession of Christ must be as
Writable, as the atonement is valu¬
able; and the atonement is of infi¬
nite value. So then, if th^e atone¬
ment applies iito all the human fami¬
ly?1 universal cedertiptkm is the
pertain consequence. Perhaps yau
juay say, you did not mean that the
atonement is applied to all the hu-«
man family; be it so,; but how can
jau unapplied atonement be plead
in intercession? Impossible f You
say, "Christ died for all the human
jamily." If so, it must have been
.in one of two ways, in which alone
it can be said that Christ died for n-
tiy: That iff, first, to have the sins
of the person or frctsqns imputed to,
or put upon him, and he accepted as
his or their substitute, according £0
Lev, 1: 4—4: 15, 20. or otherwise,
by special designation: as when He*
zekiah commanded an offering to be
made unto the Lord, he gave it a
particular designation, that it should
<&e offere,d for aUhraei; as well for
the ten tribes, tiien scattered thro*
all Assyria as for Judah^ 2 Chro. 29:
24. I hav^e 110 thought that you be¬
lieve Christ die,d for all ?hp human
.family in the first of these ways: But
do you. bejieve, when God accepted
Christ as a sim-offering, designed
him to be the substitute for all the
hutf^an family, individually ? If
you say po; Then I see not howj-ou
can make out, that he died/or those
ii^i hell, since that is taking an indi¬
vidual view of his death, nor, ca^i
you else ppssibly be sustained ii*
your proofj for unless you admit of a
jpersonafapplication of thp blood of
atonement, those false teachets could
not have bepfl bought by the blood of
Christ. But, ifyou admit of an in¬
dividual designation, In the offering
up of Christ jor the whole human fam¬
ily; and an application of the re¬
demption-price to e^chr {as you
musf4 qt it cannot be said that "these
characters, like the rest of mankind,,
were bought by the^blood of the son
ofXxod;") and Christ has gone into
'the heavenly placess hearing their
n.ames on his breast-plate there to
appear before God to" makjr 1jnte&
cession for them: They will not oo--
ly» my dear sir, "bp kept out of
hell,'* hut taken QUt, and,, borne oo-
i angel's wings, be carried into Abra-
1 '
t i
barn's bosom ! The apostle will force
this Conclusion upon you. Ileb. 9:
31, 12. For Chiist, being vome a
high pries1; of good things to come, by
his own blood entered in once, into
the holy place, having obtained »e-
tersal redemption for us. There
can be no go()d reason offered, but
that the. intercession of Christ,, now
>iu heaven, is based on his death, und
-as broad as the design of it was un¬
limited, and the redemption obtain¬
ed in the same proportion; then ac¬
cording to your view of the atone¬
ment, -the eternal redemption or all
the human family, is as eertain,
as the intercession of our Lord Jer
sus Christ of success is sure.
Having proven, as I think, tire
legitimate tendency of your argu¬
ments, is to establish unievrsal sal¬
vation, or redemption as "unlimit*
cd" as your scheme of atonement, &,
equally without ^'specialty " I leave
you to your own contemplations.
III. You seem to enjoy much
self-complacency in your arguments,
and frequently imagine to yourself,
that you * have stopped every mouth
by unanswerablea, and silenced every
opponent by unquestionable proofs,
and so, sit enjoying an universal and
final victory. But really, my bro¬
ther, I am at a loss to find the whys
and the wherefores. I will refer you
to a case or two. The question,
"Did not Christ specially die for the
elect, and just die foif the rest of
mankind, in such a sense as to pro¬
cure fur tiieji), the blessings of this
life" &c. You repel with great ease
by an asseverative appeal to the feel-
pigs ef your opponents; (a very un-;
n
safe mode of arguing, wben tli#
ways of God are to be placed ia
judgment at the bar of poor, short*
sighted and interested mortals) thus
you alledge uIt must be absurd to
suppose, that Jesus Christ won'd
have greater regard to the poor, pe¬
rishing bodies of sinners, than tq.
their immortal souls; that he ">voi*I<l
suffferoH the cross, to procure foi*
them blessings in this liiev and re-?
fuse to suffer to procure for theia
the blessings of a never ending
eternity f" And again; you ask,.
"Is it reasonable, or does it consj-
port with the character of a holy,
just and merciful Godj to suppose*
that he would permit a large portion
of the human family to live a number
ofyearsinthis world, for no pur¬
pose but that they might fill up thz
measure of their iniquity, and so
render their punishment more in¬
tolerable in hell, than if they hadl
died in infancy, &c.'' To which
j?ou add, "But as these questions
■cannot be answered without destroy¬
ing their limited plan, they will bo
silent!" Nothing, my dear sir,
Would keep me silent but astonish¬
ment at your inconsistency, and
want of reflection:-If the scriptuies
did not furnish direct answers to
these questions, 1 should not won¬
der at your sallies. You need not
be told that Jesus, in his intercesso¬
ry prayer to his 1 ather, refused to
pray for the world, while, doubtles*,
"their poor perishing bodicswero pro¬
vided for; for by him all things con-
s.ist. Will you read Gen. 15: 13—*
10,"and tell me, who fed "the poor.
peris/ting bodiei" of t+*e Aiiioritee,, fey
ti
l&ur giftn^yatiotis, till they Jilted vjj
the cup of tkpr iniquity? When (Sod
£ave tip *<€,11 nations to walk in (heir •
bwn vwys; who gave them fruitful
Reasons and filled their heart with
food and gladness? Acts 14: lt>, 17. ^
Andwh(0, tb this very time, hds sup¬
ported the poor perishing bodies of
all the idolatrous nations, whose
•gouls are perishing without vision*?
I think Sir, I may with propriety
»etort your declaration, **but as these
questions cannot be-answered ivithout
destroying your unlimited plan,
-you witlb•» silent. See Ilervey's re¬
ply to Mr. W. letter 5:
Your sentiment, .relative to the
resurection and future judgment is
©f tfle same kind. Is it not passing
strange, that y,ou should indulge in
-such reveries; having previously
guarded us against setting "the per¬
sons of the Trinity at war," (a cati-
tloiTjjou should have kept closer in
view, in the prosecution pi* your
iVork) and that in the scriptures the
resurection of the dead qnd eternal
Judgment are attributable to God
only? And 'is it not as plain as
words ean make it, that, in s.o far as
Christ as Mediator is concerned, he
sits not in judgment as a purchased
right; but by divine appointment?
In this case, you have treated, our
Lord Jesus Christ, as if he was not
God and both as a stranger and a
foreigner to his Father. For cor¬
rect views on this subject read John.
5:^2. 23. 27. Aets 17: 31.
IV. There is one other point, to
wheh, I must cqjl your attention be¬
fore I close: It is the manner in
which you treal q personal interest in
n
»
the de^th of Chusf. Theic la tfcv
subject so fraught with comfort to
(he christian soul, tip ^iC 'tying lov#
rf Jesus: No feeling, so full of picas*1
tire as a conkcioumchs of interest in
that love. When faith, working toy"
love, is' itr full exercise, the happy
soul sings for joy
"He hath tov'tl me I cri'd, Tie hath suffelr'tj &d!^
"'•To rtTieenr su.ch a rebel tis me!"
This was the joy of the ancient
saints : Rejoice greatly O Daughter*
of Zion ; shout O Daughter of Jerri*
salem: behold THY KING comcth unfo
thee : he is ju&f, and having salvation?
atid riding vptin an ass, and upon a
colt the foai of an ass : Zach. 9:
This was the glorying of Paid, txuib
forbid, said he, that I should glofy
save in the cross of Christ; tcho lov¬
ed me, and gave himself for me. (Gal*
2: 20, Ci 14.) It is the joyful, and,
triumphant song of the redeemed
both in earth and heaven > Unto Jiita
that laved us, and hath washed us
from our sins in his own blood, anct
hath main us Icings and priests unto
God atid. Ms Father ; to him be glory
and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
And they sung a new $ongt sayiirgt
thou art worthy, for thou ivast slain,
and ha?t redeemed u$ to €rod by thy
blood out of every kindred, ahd tongue,
and nationf gnd people.' (ReV. 1: 5.
6. 5: 9.) But the view you take of
this delightful subject, saps the foun¬
dation of all this holy joy j foe if
Christ has diod equally foF those in
Unbelief, as hi faith, fbv those in hell",
as for those, in heaven there can bQ
no propriety, Jin the joys of those who
are saved, because Jesus had died
for ihemf when lie had dirnl '-in thi
fjkmt sense," for those who are per¬
ished I Common rights should ne
>or be the reason of peculiar joys
I cannot conceive why you have in¬
sisted on this point, which you knew,
^♦'many of youi* brethren, thought a
dreadful heresy," unless it was to
harrass and annoy their feelings: for
surely it was in no wise necessary to
your cause. If your view of the
(atonement be just, it is, in itself, im~
personal, & can have no other than a
characteristic relation to men, as
tinners; and therefore, cannot be
properly said to b a for any man, but
by application; nay, you, yourself, re¬
solve all the ipeciality into the applica¬
tion and deny any to the atonement.
The argument then, urging that
Christ died as well /or those in hell, as
those in heaven is perfectly irrelev¬
ant to your scheme, unless it could be
thought you favored the doctrine of
final apostacy. Indeed, it must be
confessed, I am incapable of Under¬
standing you in any other light. For
you say, the false teachers, spoken
of by Peter, "were bought by the
blood of the son of God."* Now the
[45 ]
only reason, you as^gti, why yflPf
views do not favour universal redunipe
tion, is that, "the atonement and re¬
demption aro just as different ay
cause and effect,- or the atonement
is the ransom price, and redemption
is the deliverance from bondage.'*
Now can any be said to bo boughtf
foi'whonf '"the ransom price" ha*
not been laid tloiviif , No: for you
say these false teachers *wera
bought by the blood of the son of
Godi" here then, is the Application
of the atonement, with all its ran¬
soming powers; antl yet, these, the
actual purchase of the "blood of the
son of God," are *'destroyed ,1* li
this is not final apostat/, 1 do not un¬
derstand the meaning of plain words.
But lastly: your passing on Christ'^
laying down his life for hu shecj), is
the most futile, cold and comfortless
reply I have any recollection of ev¬
er noticing. To the question, "does
not Christ himself say, I lay doun
my life for the sJiccp?n You reply;
that, if he died for the world, and,
if the sheep constitute a pari of the
world, then of course he died for the
. * "Denying the Lord thai bovght them." On this phrase Mr. W. says, '-That those Hnracfri
lite the rest of mankind, w*re bought by ffce Wood of the son of God." JVow if the rest or mn d-1 k
**■/» vaA&piyipA an tortrtiri/J/fr 9cflin«rmn^ t ^ t .. J _ u Ai
t0tiiem, tkCn th2 ar&Umerrt f°r Chri^^ Wo! any
The assertion ofVT. "ihat these characters were lovght hi/ the Ihod uf b\r Sn of C J ' is
gratuitous and is void of proof, there is not liine in the whole im^aea tl.-.t l„nL, i •» U
refers to the people of Israel, nho were said to \e pVrXntf Sm £ ho, , ^) , i„? ' £h*Ct»\U
arraofGod, not by blood hat by power (Psa. 74* 2 ) The char-irtor nf I • oxidase by the 1i ti
-bought them," answers to that of the UofWl andiAeTr Vtl l"' *'f " '' i ,iJ ,0 'M 8
Mr Fuller oa this and the passag-e in ffeb. 0* y g..v8 in i,i« aro- . ■ .a^ 1 ,w * ll,ut*
, "He is not unacquainted with the scope of the auikor to tfip !'f l' ,<L'—*■
h the text. Nor need he be told, thaVthe «,0Si Z ' • "<l''" LWg' nur ll'» vv,„d „ t , „ „ ,,,
thing about the purchase of the Saviour's blood: thai the''nametflprpV1' "^^'1 ** •' *•
applied to Christ: and that if it is applied tohSn .ntlsin.^ "■ » - *<r
as they actually are, but as they are professed to be- Tbn# !n! ! J 'P' "k , ,((t
they had been spiritually alive;though, infact that^ZZT *U'd l° he ' •' * . «« ,C
profession. See Matt. iG; 72. Luke 8: ]8 » Besides it m-,v tl,B ""ifl r' ""
pie, among1 wl.orn these/afce teachers might be, than to them ?/*' * l" tli J" ^
hmte.sts, rf both terms coiiJd bfl Oionght to rater, to the earn Pewoas? bf 19
0
D
Meep.'4 So th0n, Christ rfied for
fiis sheeponly as a matter "of course;"
and very proWiwatical that! It
sreras, according to this reply, that,
\£ Christ did ftot^die for the, world,
«md i£ the sheep did not constitute a
part of the worlds then, he- did not
die for the ^shecp! And it will rathe?
appear,, that taking a xHsu»^t--rTew"
«vf the world, Christ 3'uf *iol die foe
it, as such; for surely* if J*o 4ied for
-the wgHH,, he would Lave prayed for
it, l>nt lie sayS, 4 pray not for the.
world. And the world is opposed to
tlie sheep by Christ, who says ij ye
wet e of the wo old, the WQrld wu.uld
io^e his omn: and- in address to Jais
Father he sayls again Thoywx «lnt of
the world, "even u& I nut of tht,
world,. So theg, it appears, that
Christ neither died lor the world,
us -sufht nor were the sheep of Christ,
as suqhf of the world; and. "of cout^e"
he did not die "for the sheep. (But
according to Christ ik£ w/>loe$ ate
the men of the world} for wheri he
sent his disciples, he Said tp them,
131 hold, J send you forth -as sheep in
the midst of wolves; and immediate-
I^adds, But beware of men. And
Pflul, in reference to fatpe teachers
says„ to the Elders of the church at
Eptresus, faith much affliction of
mind, I know that after my depart¬
ing shall grievous wolves enter in a-
mongyou, not sparing the flock; Then,
your answer to the question, "Did
jvot Christ himself say, J lay down
■*my life for the vheepT' will stand
thus: If he ^ietf f^c the wolves and
the sheep constitute a part ^>f the
wolves, then "ofcourse he died for
thesheep.1* *0 Brother, blush,, ond
repent, in deep humility for such -a
$ 1
thought! That the-sl^cp pfChriJl*
have o glorious mterent,in their shep*
,herd's deaths .over the worM, which
lies wicUedncss-'-that a 1 eii<,Yctf
has a psvrt trt the utotientent, with
Which1 ftfi iotidel*j—a Kt*'ai>£<jr, inftT-
meddles hot, i» spread all over
feee of scripture. TI/ckSl is nothing
"plaiileFin the sdcrcvf than that
men, before faith in Chiist and ^ha
inspiration of his lftdy Spirit, ar©,
dead in siitr, upder the Cait And ctifti!
of God, without Cfuist anJ without
hope end God lit the wo r I it; -and as!
such, liable to eternal deathf It is
fals? and deceptive to atldress tneir,
in unbelief .and impenitence, jig tlip
objects-of Cbristrs death, as if thvy
had a personal*interest in hirrt, and
vvet'e -redeemed hy his btotid, any
further than it rejfurdsthem rts sin¬
ners^ It is true there is an otrjurlivfc
fullness in Christ, of infinite w^rtfi,
able to save to the uttermost, all that
come unto Cod 4>y him; which
(arms the glad tiding* of gu.at joy—*
the «ubstance of the gospel rncssu^e
—the object of fufth—the fullness of
the blessing 6f the gospel of Chrht*
Rut whatever this is, it 4s in the Bh
blc of Cod restricted to them tfiat
believe- Thus, Christ is set forth t&
be the propitiation THR.au on faith
in his blood. The gos^Mel is the pout¬
er of (rod unto- salvation to every one
that believeth. ChriU is tfie end
of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth* but, he that
jjfiUEVKTH NOTjfluill be' damned!
I am, Dear Bmher., with &roat
consideration, Ypurs,
JESSE MERCER,
re*. ciyrus \yfnjrjp,
Bethlehem, JfiXt^q^unt^ Qeo+
EXiXlATTA,
THE reader is respectfully requested to correct the following Errattaf,
JUtge 3, colunn I, Kne 30, for Ilasferion, read Hilasfcrion, and line 38 for Ila^moi, read Hilasmos
and at the bottom for Utilalhi^in, rend Katallagen.
Pftf,re 5j coinmn 2, line I3i), for alone. Toad atoned^
.Page 8. oolutim 2, line oo, for Po^ihle see no, lead see no possible. In some copies page 9, column
2, Ko« 24, for sulisftn.lion, read sanctification.
Pn^e 11, column I, line Ifi, forgeifier, read gather.
I'h§r 16, column 2, line 3 fiom tlie bottom for e3party, read ex-parte,
F;iCfp26, column 3, line 10, f<>- jftlLcd, road fitted.
P.igc 36, column 2, line 10, he lore optra/io>i$t read special; and in iine 12, a fierce, readrour-
fags 41, Goluiau 1, liye <i,. for in, je.a<J is, -
'
>
' . ■ . • - • : ■ BSm '
?' tt- ■. •' . . Jt ' ■" ^f'iL **
I % w -„. . " ' - -
* . \ V. • >
*
- **' % ' .. \!/. VV
' . • /- * ;
;V :■ S* - ' y if.
- " ,$r : ...".. &JMI
i
ns 'H .. i