“‘ THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPEN«
SATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ’ SALVABILITY
OF THE HEATHEN.-”

IN

REPLY

TO AN
ARTICLE IN THE SIXTH NUMBER

OF 'I‘HI?)

BRITISH CRITIC

AND QUARTERLY THEOLOGICAL REVIEVV.

"‘ It should be decidedly understood, that this work is offerecl as am avg-1.m1ent;
for the salvability of all men, and not as a presumptuous enquiry concerning the mma«
bar qf those who shall be saved.” E I’. 420.

BY

EDWARD VVILLIAM GRINFIELD, M.A. A

 

L O N D O N:
PRINTED FOR C. 8: J. RIVINGTON,

ST. 1=AUL’s cnuncx-I-YARD,
AND WA'1‘E1{L0O-1’LACI‘:‘., I’ALL-MALL.

1828.

LONDON:

R. GILBERT, IPRINTE R,
5'13. JO§iN’S~SQUARE.

REPLX
<§’*c;’?.

...-u-......a...,...,,.

HAVING been arraigned by a Writer in "“ the British
Critic and Quarterly 'Tll.C0lO8‘lC&ll Review,” as the
most arrogant and presumptuous of modem divines,
as “ p1*ete11cli11g to the capacity of looking; on the
spleiidours of the Divine Majesty without Op1)l’GS-
sion or confusion,” and as p1'ofessing; to be “ able
to decide infallibly What pa1'ticular features of any
system or doctrine were abhorrent from the digiiity
and beauty of that faultless patte1'1‘1,” (p. 3:35.) as
“ clecicliizg in a tone of ar1'0gz.i1‘1t d<)g111atis3.1‘1,” equal
to that of W'a1'burt0n_, While “ he has summoned t0
his aid such a multitude of feeble or trcaclieicus
arguments that his services have a tendency to
weaken, for a time, our 1*espect for the cause he
has felt himself impelled to Inaintain ;” (p. 352.) I
think it due to my cl1aracte1°, not merely as an
author, but still more as a man, a Christian, and a
Clergyman, to repel this atrocious attack on my
religious principles, and to clear myself from tliis

A 9

an-I

4

imputed impiety, and to make it evident that the
threat held out by my reviewer can have no terror
to my conscience. “ They who approach too nearly
the light, which is in the dwelling-place of Omnipo-
tence, will assuredly be struck down and over-
powered by its glory.” P. 335.  

The spirit and . temper in which this review is

drawn up may be judged of from its introductory
sentences. “ We have in this Work a notable
exemplification of the injury which may sometimes
be inflicted ‘on a good cause by the exertions of an

  ilidiscreet and vehemently zealous advocate. ‘The

passionate earnestness with which this author has
addressed himself tothis disquisition may besufii—-
ciently collected from the language of his preface.
‘He there avovvs that ‘the extreme delicacy as Well
as magnitude of the argument caused him ifre-
quently to lay it‘ aside ;’ till, at last, the immense
eimportance of the subject overpowered all appre-
hension of rdifliculty.   ‘l The -consequent conviction
‘of his own duty’ seems to have become like a ‘béw*7z-
ring fire slzut up in 725.9 bones, so that. he . was
‘weary qf'forbca~rz'9zg and could stay no longer.
The impatient element has now burst forth, and
finds fuel in almost every thing which crosses it in
its course.” P. 326.

 Such is the amiable and elegant language in ‘

which this reviewer has been pleased tocommence
his impartial critique ‘of a iévorkywhich has been the

5

theme of _ my merlitetiony for more thony twenty
years; to which all my previous studies have been
directed; and which has at last been dra.Wn up in a.
form which even thiswriter allows to he “ unex~
ceptionable.” (P, 339.) “ It oH’o1*dsy by its a1‘r2mge--
inent an easyecoess to the sm:ipt1,1ra,l a,utl1orities
that bear on the question, and from itsinduotive
m'etl1od,i it enables a judicious reader to sepomte
fond throw aside those _attesto.tions and those argue
inents on which he thinks no safe yrelia.nce can 
P1£lCed*” VP,‘  .   '   V’ 4 s T A is   
9‘ ‘To ysyhewy that thislwork  not the result of
f‘ passionate earnestness,” but of the most calm and
deliberate considemtion, I beg leave to reprint the
two following sections from my “Connection of
Natuiaaly and Revealed Theology ii,” a work at which
had diligently laboured fox more than ten years,i
and to which my late treatise is but a oorollary 
eonolusion. ‘   A ii A

PART 1., snow. 34. P. 111. t

“ 092 the supposition of any Revelation, would
it not probably be inteazclecl for the benefit of the
whole  mce      it   V” _ e   ‘ it
 ""’ 3‘ The Cohixection of Natural end ReyealedTl1eolog~y; being
an attemwptltyo illustrate the evidences and doctrines of Chris-—
tianity by their relation to the inductive philosophy of the
human. mind, with notes and authorities from the most eminent
aiociegxt and modern writers. Svo. ‘London. 1818.”

6

“ If we admit that the7Creator of the world from
some extraordinary circumstances relative to our
species, should interfere to save and rescue his off-

spring, it certainly appears most consonant to our
reason and to our conceptions of the Divine attri-

butes that he should interfere for the sake of all,
rather than for the exclusive advantage of a few.
Though it would, perhaps, be too much to affirm
that this is essential to our notions of God’s justice,

(for the Whole being matter of grace and favour, it 1

could hardly be brought under the consideration of
strict right,) yet it must be allowed that We could
scarcely ‘reconcile? such extreme partiality to our
sentiments of infinite Wisdom and unlimitedigood-
ness. There is a grandeur in the attempt also, as
relative to the Whole worldvrathcr than to a limited
number of individuals, which would and which ought
to prepossess us in favour of the more comprehen-
sive scheme of mercy. V Nor upon looking abroad
onthe creationysrhouldv We feel disposed to think
that any were devoted tocertain, an_dinevitablede-
struction. For though it be true, that some are
placed in more favourable situations, both for vir-
tue and happiness, than others; yet it Would be
impossible to shew that any individuals are entirely
out off from all means of self-improvement, and from
all capability of temporal happiness. The blessings
of creation and preservation extencl universally to

'7

all mankind; and though dealt out in various de--r
grees, yet there is a principle of compensation dis-
coverable in nature which goes far to equalize our
sufferings and enj oyments. Thus even savage life
has some pleasures and advantages which are pecu-~t
liarto itself; so has a life of poverty and labour
compared with one of ease and affluence; The
acutest pain is generally accompaniedwith sotmei,in-
termissions of pleasurable ease, and there is com-«
passion ‘discoverabler even in the circumstances of
our death. ' These, with mlanyvroobservations of the
like nature, might lead ‘usto expect that if any
Revelation were afforded, it would be afforded for
the benefit of all, rather than of a few. v And though
We should not, I think, be justified in rejecting a,
Revelation becauseit did not correspond with such
hopes and views, yet it would be a considerable
presumption against it, so thatlsome strong coun-
teracting evidence would be requisite to overcome
our prejudices arising from such disappointment of
our natural expectations.” ‘

~ PART II. snow. 32.

“ Does not O/zristianity _prqfes.s' to be ¢zRevela-
iion designed for the benefit qf the rwizole world ?
“Although the considerations which have been
already urged seem already suflicient to .point out

the universal nature of the Christian religion, yet,

i 8

it may be proper toishiewithatithis Dispensation is
unlimited, even whilst its knowledge is but par-y
tiallyw difihsed, and its temporal benefits extended
only to a small proportion of mankind. I Now that
the language of Christianity admits of the most
wide and universal interpretation, maybe seen from
the following arguments: First, Its author is dc»-i
scribed as ‘* the Lamb slain from the foundation of

. the world” «as “ having given himself a ransom for

all” as “ having tasted death for all men.” a He is
styled “. the propitiation for our sins, and not for‘
our sins: only, but for those of the whole world.”
His ideath is described as being of equal extent with
the universal evils arising A from the Fall; and he
must often have suffered, it is argued, since the
foundation of the world, had 7 not his atonement
been of inestimable and I‘ unlimited importance.
Secondly, The strongest proof of this universality
arises out of the character of the founder of Chris-
tianity, as ?"_the Mediator between God and ,man,”.

and from the oflice which he will discharge over all

“ as the judge of quick and dead.” i This being a
doctrine admittedby. all Christians, there is no
appeal from its consequences. If Jesus is to be
the judge of allmen, then it is‘ in the highest‘de-
gree improbable that the whole human race is not,
in some degree or other, connected with Him as a
Rtzdeemer. a .The same conclusion, will also arise,
from y, those passages pf Scripture in which we are

9

directed “ to pray for all men,” to love and to
honour all men. A Let any candid Deist consider,
Whether it can be fair to object against a religion
which contains‘ such universal doctrines, as if it were
limited, and confined to a few? Whetlier he be-
lieves in Christianity or no, as a Divine Revelation,
he   must ‘admit that those doctrines are laid down
in the New Testamentjand that consequently, it
deserves that prepossession in its favour which natu-»

rally arises out of its professinginto be intended for

the benefit of- all mankind. Query; Has any other
religionsstefver appeared in thelworld which has made
the same universal professions C”’c * , ' 1 .  ,

From these references, it will distinctly appear
that I have not rushed “alike a horse into the battle ;”

A thatij havedevotedi to this momentous subject all

the strength and vigour of my faculties; and that

so far from its being ;“' an impatientcelernent which

has new burst forth ;” it is the result of   early and
of late meditation on the Scriptures, in their con-»
nection with the principles of moral science, and
that if I amiwrong, as I have lived, so must I die
in thisiirretrievable error.   ' L ‘ ‘ ; 1  
My-reviewer /is little aware how cautiously I have
approached this momentous enquiry, and what varied
shapes it had assumed ere it appeared in What he
allows to be its present “ convenient form.” Having
no parochial engagements, I was enabled, during
sixteen ‘years residence at Bath, tocast and recast

10

theseenquiries in the form of discourses from the
pulpit; to try them in every aspect and attitude ;
to hear of their effect upon others, and gradually to
combine them in one harmonious system. Sofar
from presuming onimy own powers, I at lastde-
termined to throw aside every thing like regular
argumentation, and to bring forward thiswork in
the least possible‘ dogmatic form-»--—-as a running
commentary on the . history of the Old and New
Testaments; I ask my reviewer, in what possible
manner I could have brought forward my sentiments
with lessappearanceofrdogmatism C’, Is a be angry
that I have appealed to theiword of God, rather
than to the hopes’ andswishes of the human mind?
“ Which then,” he asks,“ we would demand, (and

we recommend the question to the serious consider-a

ation of the author before us, and of all his readers)
which is the more becoming, the more reverend,
and the more pious way of conducting an enquiry,
which, like the present, involves the inscrutable
attributes of God ? That which rushes at once to
the conclusion, that the doctrine of limited redemp-'
tion must inevitably be false, because it ascribes to
the Deityproceedings inconsistent with his nature,
and tliat an angel should not be received if he came
to, preach it, or that whichtakes a morecircum-

yspectand modest course, which first labours to es-

tablish that the scheme of universal redemption
l1¢EL1‘I11OI1iS6_S better than the opposite syste1I1;,;With.all
1

11

our views of equity, with all the afi“ections oi’ our
hearts and dictates of our understandings, and above
all with the general declarations of Scripture, and
then infers, that we may indulge a reasonable and
confident hope of its trut .” P. 335.

Now, if I had conducted my inquiryin the forsm
and manner here prescribed, I ask any compe-
tent judge to say, whether it would not have as-
sumed a far more dogmatic aspect than that in
which it now appears. “f He divides his work into
five parts; eachpart being it further divided into
sections, and each section devoted to the considera--
tion of some fact or text, which the author con-
ceives to bear on the subject. At the end of each
part, is-ta summary of the argument carried on
through the preceding sections. A view of the
table of contents, therefbre, enables the reader, sal-
most at asingle glance, to form somenotion of the
resources on which the writer relies, and to survey
the extent of the foundation on which he rests the
fabric of his system. His method, in short, is
that of induction, and at the end of his treatise he
claims credit for having endeavoured to exemplify
the Baconian method of investigation.” P. 339..

It is after pursuing this painful, impartial, and
unostentatious method of inquiry; a method which
makes no appeal to human reason, but which keeps
close to the text of Revelation ; it is for preferring
the negative praise of being  mere coasteralong

12

-the shores of the Bible, tothe pride of speculation
and the reputation of attempting a voyage of disj-
covery, that I amnow denounced by this reviewer as
an arrogant and impious dogmatizer on the divine
attributes; as f‘ having taken on myself to pro-
nounce With more adventurous confidence than any
of my predecessors.” AP. 352. As it dashing through
the difiicultiesof the subject with sweeping turbu-7
lence.” 353. A“ As venturing to pronounce with

rash confidence, What is, and “what is not consistent

with the attributes of the Deity,” and “ as leaping
intothe centre of, these awful metaphysics,without_
any enquiry, whether the power or capacities of man
are such as qualifyhim to live - and move in the
midst of such mysterious elements.” P. 333. r A p g r
'1", r I askwhether a Work,_vvhich is drawn up in 
form “ which from its inductive method enables a
judicious reader to separate and throws aside those
attestations and arguments on which he thinks no

safe reliance can be placed,” p. 353, is, or canbeh
deserving of this severe and unsparingf reprehen-pg

sion '2 What is it that can at most be urged against
the course I have pursued ? That Imay have pos-
sibly brought forvvard a few texts Which, according
to the opinion of some, ' may not seem relative to
my conclusions. I have never expected or required
of myreader that he should admit the force of all
my scriptuI'al attejstations; but knowing, as I» do,
the vast variety of opinions on this subject, and that

13

the same passages which this reviewer may deem
foreign oriunsatisfactory,toanothermind may bring
light and conviction; I have preferred a large and
liberal appeal to the word of God, «before the spare
and parsimonious sentiments of a few. ‘ l

  “ So Various is this evidence, that it compre-
hends almost every species of proof; it is sometimes
founded on facts, sometimes on plain and natural
inferences; now it is contained in ‘'a universal
maxim, and now it is deduced fromiia‘ particular
incident. ° And there isthis pecu1iar‘advanta'gelat-

tending it, that it hasthe Weight of cumulative tee;

tirnony,together with theconnection and beauty of
a chain of argument. It has the force of synthesis;
‘and the accuracy of analysis. “ Here" are nurnerrousr
and ' diversified particulars, all conspiring to the
same conclusion 3. but‘: should any one off these par-
ticulars not be approved.of, it ‘may be lemitterd
‘without idetriment he to the remainder. Upon the
Whole, I think it must be acknowledged, that it
Would be difficult to mention any doctrine of Scrip-
ture for which ’a larger body of multifarious con-

t egruitiresicould be produced.”  P. 341. e 4

 And a now; gentle reader; haying entered this

 appeal against this violent raccusation ofiaeimpiety or
“dogmatism, iwith regard he to the general method

which I have ladopted. allow ‘me to say,i that I am
-not ashamed of following out  premises to their
:.conclusions. ‘nor of avowing the determination, “that

14*

not content with the admission that the salvability
of the Heathen ispossible, or with the assertion
that it isjonleveryyaccount, in the highest degree
probable, I believe ittoy be absolutely certain affirm-_-;
ing, that it is as fairly and plainly deducible from
Scripture,‘ as almost anyother point of Christian
doctrine; and that I disdain to accept from fathers
and doctors, merely asan object of hope, that which
patriarchs and prophets and apostles have tendered
«me as an article of ,f'az't/2.” P. 328.  pg ,_

My amiable reviewer, who has beenlong nursed
in the opinions of aunts and grandmothers, and

‘who loolisup to “‘ fathers and doctors” with such
profound reverence; rnaywell indeed condescend‘

to accept, as an article of hope from them, that
,which_: Ireceive from'Scripture as an article of fczit/z,
If this Theological Reviewer can persuade others
to receive the doctrine of Universal Redemption on

_ the same excellent authority, his influence must be

greatindeed; but I fear that in an age of free
inquiry, and when aunts and grandmothers,fathers
 doctors, are held in such low theological es-
teem, this hope will not be very strong nor very
;pr‘eval»ent. «Be this as it may, if the Bible does
not contain evidence of ~ this all-important doctrine,
it is easy to see that Calvin and his ;followers are
not very far from the truth. This, indeed, my
-friend is already disposed well nigh to acknowledge.
ff t',I‘he patron of sUniversal” Redemption wit/tiiz the

15

/ Church is compelled, as it Were,’ to look stern and
awful with one moiety of his visage, whilst he affects

a mild and amiable aspect with the otherf’ P. 329.;  

Commend me to suchan apologist for the Church
of England! 1 \ .w r   :
If I were disposed to retort the above insinuat-
tions of impiety and irreligion, perhaps this ambi-:9
guous language might furnish me with no unfit
 opportunity, for it certainly savours of derision both
of Calvinists and Arminians. . But my friendhéas
now taught me far better manners. F‘, Theology,
from its very nature, often involves paradoxes, and
it is a region of debate which more than any other
demands the constant recollection of human infir-
mity.” P. 345.  a it  I Q l i l 
But it is time that I should advert “r to that
multitude of feeble and treacherous targumentsi’
which I am . charged it with having introtdulcedinto
the body of my Work. And first, this tender res
viewer is concerned to find Grinfield asserting,
that, according to the Calvinistic system, the divine
government proceeds solely on the maxim, .“ Sic
¥volo,sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntasi’ P. 329.;
I heartily pity a writer who can thus trifle with a
bit of Latin. My Words are these, and it was not
easyfor any candid person to mistake their import.
“ The Calvinist may at least boast this advantage,
that his principles extend over the whole world,
and that, Whether with relation toPagans or Chris-.

16

tians, the reign of arbitrary power and of infinite
irresponsibility is maintained.   _,Hc rests hissystems
solely on the edict ' of Omnipotence. Sicvolo_,;:

l sic jubeo, stat pro rationevoluntas.   But not so
the professor of Universal Redemption.” Preface,

p'.ixi.. iNoW,i“ this statement, to any one whowas
at all conversant with it the matter at issue," would
have beenperfectly plain and intelligible. ‘ It was
my object to contrast the consistency of A Calvinism

on this subject, with the inconsistencysof those who

contend for the doctrine of Universal Redemption,
as relating to the Members of the ChristianiChurch,:
yet vvho, at the same time, deny its extension fto;
the great majority of manl<ind.- A This Wiasiall that
concerned my object, and for thisfpurpose it Was,
suficient to contrast their system and our own in one
single point. So far from being desirous of attaclc-«gr
ing Calvinism in general, as this Writer represents,
I have all along disclaimed this intention. “ "With-»
out wishingto make any direct attack on the prin-_~—
ciples of Calvinists (forthe rej ectionof the Heathen
forms a component part of their system) I address
my labours chiefly to those who believe, or profess
to believe, that Christ has died for the sins of the
whole World, and upon their priaczples I undertake
to shew, from the Whole history and tenor of the
Bible, that the Heathen haveheen rendered capaw
ble of: salvation through the death of ‘Christi’-ri&c..
Preface, p. xiii. xiv. . t C  s C  A  ' l

17'

For having made the above statement, I am
gravely charged with having misrepresented the
Calvinistic theory. “ No well-informed Calvinist
ever maintains, that in the Divine counsels the ar-~
bitrary will of the Almighty smvzcls in the place of
right reason.” P. 329. VVe have then an attempt
to prove, what no one ever thought of denying, that
the Calvinists are cZe.s*z'9'ous of reconciling the arbi-
trary will of the Deity to his attributes of mercy,
and yet with a real school-boy taste, he reverts
to the Latin thesis, and attempts to justify its
application. “ He (the Calvinist) does but put
into the mouth of the Deity language which
might be used (though, of course, with infinitely
less authority and justice) even by a wise and bene-
volent human autocrat to subjects too barbarous or
ignorant to comprehend enlightened and profound
principles of government. Hemight fairly say to
them, sic volo, sic jubeo-———my edicts may appear
harsh and unreasonable, but I have grounds for
them, which it Would be impossible for you to com-
prehend ; to you, therefore, my will for the present
must be the only motive for obedience, “ stat prop
ratione voluntas,” p. 330. Alas! that I should
have fallen into the hands of a pedagogue. It is
plain that a latin primer or a lexicon would far
better become this gentleman than disquisitions
about Calvinism or Arminianism.

The next mistake which is charged on me con--

B

18

sists “ inpmy raising an outcry against the frightful
impiety of supposing that a just and gracious God

will punish millions of men for their ignorance of a

Redeerner, whom they had no means of knowing‘

orreeeiving.” P. 331. r Now this, to say the least

of it, isone of the poorest and . most flippant quib-
hles .tha”t_ever appeared on paper. a It is the wells
known‘ dogma of Calvinists, “ Nemo potest ser-.-
vari quiChristo per veram fidem non sit insitus*.”
This was the dogma which formed the first great
point of dispute between the lRemonstrants and

  Contra»--Remonstrantsat the Synod of Dort. But

sinée this faith, though essential to salvation, has

heen utterly denied to Pagans, it is plain. their

condemnation Will result from their want of such
faith. HoWever,1et ‘us take it on the other suppo-k
sition, that their condemnation will follow, not from
the want of faith, but because they were originally
left under the curse of the fall, Which curse has not
to thembeen reversed. ‘: Now, so, it is plain that
no subsequent preaching can “ever formthe means
of their conversion to Christ, for they are as inca-
pable of believing in him as the fallen angels.
Whether this would be a milder charge upon Cal-1
vinists I leave for my acute reviewer to determine.

3‘ To assert the former, he argues, would he just
ahouti asreasonable as to affirm, that mankind pe-

p *3‘ Vide Turretini Inst. Tlieolog’. ‘Vol. i..Quest.'4, p. 11. M

19

rished at the. Deluge because they did not or could
not get into the ark.” P. 332. Ihave no hesi-»
tation in saying, that to assert the latter is exactly
parallel to this illustration. A So much for his cor-
rection on the score of Calvinisin. i

“ Another favourite resource of the author, is a
passionate appeal to the universal benevolence and
perfect righteousness of the Deity, attributes which
are outraged by the presumption that his dispensa-
tions of grace can possibly have say limited and par-»
tial aspect.” P. 332. Who would imagine that I
had drawn up my work in the method above stated,
from such an accusation C’ It might have been
supposed that I had written long disquisitions on

the attributes of the Deity, Whereas I have merely

kept to the history and text of the Bible.
However, the light begins now to dawn upon.
this undigested chaos. This Writer, it is plain,
belongs to the school of Archbishop King, who
gravely affirmed, that we know no more of the at-
tributes of God than a blind manknovvs of colours.
My controversy with Bishop Copleston on this
subject is before the public, and there I am content
to leave it. Afterhaving been honoured with such
an adversary, it can hardly be expected that I
should debatethe point with the writer of a review.
I do not hesitate here to repeat the assertion,
that if the attributes [of God, as i made known to us
3 o

H

20

by reason gind Scripture, are so far past our under-;-
standing, that We cannot speak of them in a sound
and intelligible manner, the Bible is no revelation
at all to man, and that we must gropevon in dark-
ness and scepticism to the end of our course. The
difficulties on our side, be it reinernbered, are all in
favour of the extent of the Divine attributes,--—-vve
cannot adequately conceive of their infinity, where-Q
as the difficulties of Calvinism are quite of another
kind-—-—~We cannot possibly conceive of their Zz'nzz'ta-
tion. 4 _ . ..
V  I am next charged with “ an indignant and con--
temptuous treatment of the distinction, so long
familiar to divines, between the covenanted and
uncovenanted mercies of God,” p. 336»-~———“ With
all deference to the many excellent and learned in—4
dividuals Who have sanctioned this distinction, I
will venture to assert, that it has no authority
Whatever in Scripture,” p. 3437. Is this the lan-;
rguagej of contempt or indignation? However, I
shall not shrink from the assertion, “ that it has no
foundation in Scripture ;” and, I as this Writer can
find no better name for it than “ a surmise,” p. 3536,

I presume he cannot contradict me. If I “ a sur---:

mise,which has the sanction of the greatest names

of Theology,” is to be received as Gospel, We may

look in vain for any rejection of established errors.
If this writer had known any thing of the ‘argu-

21

ment, he would have perceived that the whole truth
of this theory, as relative to the salvability of the
Heathen, depends on the rejection of this un-
scriptural distinction.   And I beg further to add,
that supposing them to be insalvable, all endeavours

  at their conversion must be vain and futile. If the

Heathen be not contained“ in the first and original
promise, nothing subsequent can possibly help them;
You might as Well go and preach to fallen spirits,
as preach to men who are not   salvable. But if
salvable, they must be contained within the charter
of redemption; the curse of the fall must have been
so far revoked, as to bring them Within the realms
of mercy. If not, go back, my friend, to the hy-

pothesis you have already rejected. They must be p

condemned on account of their want of faith.
This ‘reviewer affects to be an Anti-Calvinist,
and yet he contends that it is “ beyond the power
of argument to shew that the original promise to
the Wo1nan’s seed was an e.r;pression large enough
to comprise the whole posterity of Eve without ex—-
ception,” p. 336.. He might have aclded; or to
prove that it embraces any more than a very small
minority. r I pity that Church from my heart wliich
relies upon such an advocate as its defender.
  “ No certain inference can be drawn in favour
of general redemption merely from the “Zamguage
of these ytwo famous proniises,” p. 338, as if I
had made the whole Weight of the argument to

22

depend‘ on a “subs’tantive, or adjective. My argu----
ment was this,‘ and it depends “not so much upon
Words‘, as upon facts.--«All men were created in
Adam.-y-A--——All amen fell in ,Adam.j—-—Christ was A the
Creator, and Christ will be the Judge of a1lmen.-~—-
The promise of redemption was given immediately
after “the fall, when only a single pair of human
beings pyexisted.—--——-Are We to ’co"nclude that it was
partial, or that it extended to all mankind"? i

it My reviewer recommends a great attention to
words, and then confesses, that the Scriptures have
very little of technical regularity or scientific pre-
cision. * Well then, let us take them in their most
general and popular   meaning. I ask any nrazn,
whether he would not arrive at the same conclu-
sion ? A V >‘   \ ,
But my critic is a lover of nature and of the
picturesque, and he has cited some lines of J uvenal
to answer me, and to annihilate the reasoning
of Butler, that there   does exist a close. analogy
between’ things in the present, life i, and  that
which is to come; and this Writer gravely ‘con-
cludes, “ that a little more yattentionto the cha-
racter and genius which distinguish the vvorks of
God from the works of man, would have preserved
all the grandeur, variety, and richness of the pros-
pects which revelation holdsout to us, and would
save them from, being broken and interrupted by
the “unsightly symmetry of mere human invention,”

4,

23

p.339. Alas! for the invention of covenanted and
uncovenanted mercies. s O A '   A

“C The author has got it into his head, that Re--r
Velation must be altogether abandoned, if the doc-

trine of Universal Redemption be not A Written ,

there in the plainest and most legible forms; and
accordingly,’ the whole materials which Revelation
supplies, are to be moulded to the form and pur--
pose of this theory,” p. 339. How surprising, if the
edifice of Redemption has been designed for the
benefit of all mankind, that its foundations, super-
structure, andieveryl‘ part of the building, should be
subordinated to this grand and universal purpose!
How should it be otherwise '2 Can this Writer be
ignorant that by far the most potent and plausible
objections of Deism are drawn from this very
source ? A few years since, I saw a very curious
illixstiration” of this poiintp "It was the intercepted
letter of a poor Cornish miner, Who was corre-
sponding with his Deistical brethren in town. It
contained an elaborate calculation of the supposed
numbers of all who had lived and died in ignorance
of the Gospel, as compared with the Jews of old
and “V the Christians of modern times. The man
took it forigranted that the benefits of Christ’s
Redemption were limited to the members of the
Christian Church. He assumed the sentiments of
what I have termed Ecclesiastical CaZm'm'sm ; and

'u on this sinrrle assum tion he averred, it Waist
C‘)

24.4‘

utterlyimpossible he could ever believe that the
God of Christians Was the God of nature. Who-
ever is iconversanti with the writings or objections
of unbelievers, knowsithat this is the grand arsenal

 in which‘ they “forge“ptheir Weapons; and, after

thematurest consideration, I do not think that We
can drive them from their conclusions many other
way than by denying their premises.

My reviewer now proceeds to the investigation‘

of particulars, and after allowing “that it would

be impossible to follow the author through all the

details of his inquiry, Without inflicting on his
readers a tractate of almost equal bull<',”7he professes
“ to confine" himself to the selection of such speci-
mens of his judgment and execution as may enable
hisreaders to form some estimate of his fitness for
the task he has undertal<en.” P. 340.
  Such was his profession at the beginning of the
critique--—~—-letius now turn to his performance at
its close. “ We had marked down for citation
various passages, exhibiting juster views of the true
grounds on which we may rest our belief, or rather
our hope, that the design of Redemption embraces
the whole family of mankind, &c. Our limits,
however, disable us from giving insertion to those
passages we had intended. We trust that no in-
justice will be inflicted on the author by this ‘our
reluctant suppression of his happier efforts,” &c.
  P. 353; Passing ., by all consideration if of this con-

25

duct as relative to the indivildnal, I ask any rnan”

to say, whether such would be the behaviour of one
who really meant well to the doctrine of sUniversal
Redemption '3 Is it at all consistent with sucha

belief, to expose only the errors of its advocate, and

to pass by all “ his happier efibrts C?”

'. He now seriously commencesthe. attack; “It
i might puzzle any mortal man to divine how the

confusion of tongues could be connected with the
doctrine of Universal Redemption,” p. 340.‘ In...

deed! as if the doctrine of Universal Red‘e_,mption'

did not relate to all mankind, and more especially
to that supernatural event by which “ the nations

(the Heathen) were dispersed over the face of the

whole earth,” Gen. xi... 5~---~-~---7 *. And how does he
dispose of this section? “ It is sufficient to A re-
mark, that the wholeof . thisargurnient depends on

the assumption that, on this partial schem“e,rmen
will be punished for their ignorance of revealed
truth.” P. 340. The whole of this argument
depends on no ‘such assumption, for it is farmore
connected with the previous consideration}Whether

they are in a saleable condition----“whether the cove-
nant of salvation embraces them ornot.” Theminor
hardship is swallowed up  this tremendous en-

quiry. The wantof “faith” may be remedied by

conversion to Christianity, the want of an interest

"*“ See Plaifere’s Appello Evangelium, p. 68.

‘.36

in the covenant of the redemption must leave them
to perish without any possibility of escape.

“ The Worst that can befal him, even  zemce-‘
cleemed, Willtbe, to be dealt with "after his actual
sins, and rewarclccl according to his positive in-
iquities.” P. 340. Such‘ is the influence of Dr.
Wl1ateley’s logic; when applied to the vacuumof
antexhausted receiver. As if an uwedeemecl sinner
could ever be treated as though he had lived in a
state of trial andprobation! The Worst that could
befal my book was to place it in the hands of i such
a profound dialectician. . t

  is (.$‘ A remarliableinstancet of inconclusivelt reason-
ing occurs in Sect. xxi. p.l;89, in'vWl1?lCl1'tl1e'S£1lV€lv'_'_

bility of the heathen is inferredfrom the ‘regula;tion~

of the Jewish‘ law,§ which allowed a stranger to be

naturalized by circumcision. This analogy is, if any‘

thing,   decidedly unfavourable to the author’s argu--t
ment: for if - the stranger could not enjoy theprivi«-
leges of aeJeW Without the assumption of Judaism,
how are ,.WiB,tt0 conclude that at heathen can be in-».
vested with the hope and blessings of the Christian

covenant Without; becoming a member of the Chris?
tian Church 2” P. 3441. 4
W  No doubt my revi.eWer cleernedthis to be a deadly

bloW.,_b11t,plike old Priam’s dart,itfalls short many
or rood of its intended n1arl<.. “t The stranger,” 
have admitted, “was obliged to be circumcised ere
he could partake of thosepeculiar advantages which

27

were annexed to the Mosaic, economy, so also when
the Heat/zentare Zwoug/at to »a knowledge ef the
Gospel, they must submit to Baptism before they
can be considered members of the C/misticzaz C/zurcfz,
(p. 90.) Who does not see that the questionstill
remains, What were the peculiar advantages of the
Mosaic economy, and what are the peculiar hopes.
and blessings of the Christian covenant? He ase-
sumes the very point in debate, that the hope and
blessings of the Christian C,’/amfck are equivalent to
the blessings of the Christian cove9zmzt.  He would
charge me with a false analogy, but I answer that
he stands convicted of a plain and undisguised
petitio p7'z'7zc27pt"z’. \

“ It is observed by Dr. Gray, in adverting to the
history of Ruth, that ‘ the Holy Spirit by record»
ing the adoption of a Gentile woman intothe family
from which Christ was to derive his origin might
intend to intimate the comprehensive design of the
Christian dispensation,’ (Gray’s Key, 8:0. p. 166.)
This remark the author allows to be judicious as
far as it goes. But it is not large enough to «satisfy
the cravings of his Zilvemlity.  He sees in this in-4
teresting narrative no less than a clear intimation,
that though the Edomites and Moabites were
among the examples of Divine judgments on sinful
nations, in their temporal   concerns, yet that, as
individuals, they are treated in their eternal desti-
nies like the rest of mankind.” P. 113.

28

" Whether this representation be fair may be
judged of from this cautious and guarded lan-
guage : “ to find that a Rahab and Ruth obtained
mercy seems to intimate that these nations were
dealt with on the same terms of equity and justice
as all others,” p. 113. I have ventured to use
stronger language at the close of the section, but
that was from having subsequently met with this
decided language of Scripture, “thou shalt not
abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brotlzeag” &c.
Deut. xxiii. '7, 8. is I i   I I A
How does he contradict this inference? “ To
consider” the admission of Ruth into the genealogy
of the Saviour, as an emblem of the, admission of
the Heathen to the blessings of his dispensation, is
to carry this sort of spiritualizing interpretation to
the utmost legitimate extent that it will bear; but
to infer from it that the heathen shall inherit eter--
nal life, Whether admitted into the Church of Christ
or not, is to convert Scripture into allegory and
mysticism.” >1’. 342. I It  -‘I  V
I-pp Now I will fairly avovv, that I distrust all spiri-
tualizing interpretation of Scripture if used as
owgzmzents, andl am not aware that I have intro-I
duced any such into my treatise: I rely upon (the
bare‘fact, but I have ‘made no attempt at emble-
matical and allegorical interpretations. , .
 “it In the fortieth section (p. 1315,) the authoir
produces as variety of prophetic PEtSS«’;1g6S_Wl1lCh

29

speak in very unlimited terms of the blessings of
the Christian dispensation; and after admitting that

these expressions have a more immediate reference ’

to the Christian Church, he asks, ‘ whether they
may not also admit of a more wide and comprehen-
sive interpretation whether they may not relate to
the dispensation as Well as to the revelation of ap
Gospel?’ (p. 136.) This undoubtedly is a ques-
tion which men may very properly ask of each

other; and charity Will prompt them to Wish that 

the answer may be in the affirmative. A But there

is nothing in the expressions themselves which can

extort such an answer from the adversary of Univer-
sal Redemption. We have already adverted to the
danger of filling the Words of Scripture with all the

l meaning they can possibly be made to contain;

But of this danger the writer seems to be, through»
out, totally insensible.” P. 342.    
s Now the cautious manner in which this reasoning
is cast, as nothing more than amodest query, ought
surely to have prevented any harsh observations
respecting an attempt “ to €.Q32f07‘Z5v an answer from
the adversary of Universal Redemptio11.” As to his;
reference to the prophetv Joel, (chap. ii. 28.) “ it

shall come to pass afterward,tl1at I will pour out my»

Spirit on all flesh,” he ought to have remembered

that the proper interpretation of those words has

been given us by z'7z.9_pi9'ed authority, (Acts ii. 20,,

30

21.) and consequently that neither he nor.I could I

be at liberty to apply them in any other manner.
The truth is, I was Well. aware that all these
illustrations did noteqzoally relate to the argument,
-—--some are more remote and others more proXi~:-
mate, but knowing how differently different minds
are affected, I was unwilling to omit any thing
which could throw the smallest ligl1t on this impor-~
tant subject. Even this impartial critic” has not
disdained to borrow from methe same illustration :
“if pressed to enumerate the chief reason for this
persuasion, we   should mention the comprehensive
language of the prophecies of the Old» Testament,”
p. 356. " I I I A ‘o
I do not feel it necessary to make any apology for
having‘ adopted the language of Lord Bacon, which
I have no doubt, to use this reviewer’s expression, is
to him “ as transparent as barrica‘do‘es”and lustrous
as ebony,” p. 343. l I    
It is not, indeed, to be Wondered that thelan;
gnage of mortals should he conternptuously treated
by this «reviewer, when he has not hesitated thus
briefly to dispose of our Saviour’s most solemn

declaration, “ the men of " Nineveh shall rise in!
judgment with this generation, and condemn it,for
theyrepented at the preaching of Jonas,” Matt. xii;
41.; “iAnd yet rafter all What is this, but a forcible
and popular ‘way of intimating to "' that generation“

31

that their guilt was deeper than that of Nineveh;
and, therefore, that their condemnation should be
heavier? We often hear it said of at worthless and
zmpriizcipleal person that compared with him a
robber or swimller is a respectable character;
but this is never ,thought to imply any positive

comlemmztioiz of either,” p. 343. I much suspect

whether this Writer is not in his old predicament,-———~
“looking stern and awful with one moiety of his
visage, whilst he affects a mild and amiable aspect
with the ,other.”., A «

His next objection is directed against the in-
stance of the woman of Samaria, sect. lii. p. 174.
“ We know that this is the Christ, the Saviourof
the world.” From this declaration I had inferred,
that if the faith of the Samaritans was accepted
according to the circumstances in which they were
placed, every merciful allowance would be made for
the involuntary errors of Heathen ignorance and
barbarism.

He endeavours to get rid of this inference
by urging the following alternative,»--—“ either their
faith was sufficient for qualifying them to be mem-»
bers of H the visible Church of Christ, or it was not,".’
p. 344. But this is totally .1nisrepresenting the
whole of my argument. ‘It never pretended’ to say
that the faith of these Samaritans was sufficient to
qualify them for any such purpose, according to our
notions of the visible Church of Christ; but what It

32

affirmed, and what I still affirm, is, that it was
mercifully accepted by that Redeemer whodidfnot

‘try them by the standard of modern .orthodoxy, but

who” accepts" “every man‘ according to that he
hat ...” I ‘shall "not Waste another Word upon this
subject, but leave it to the reader’s own considera-i
tion.vn   i  

“ Sect. lxxxiii. p.’176, relates to the 1niraculous
cure of the nobleman’s son. Of this, and all other
miracles pévformecl for the relief’ of Gciztilevs, it
may be remarlczed that no safe conclusion can be
drawn from7tl1em respecting their spiritual condi-
tion,” p. 344.». This is an excellent decision indeed,

‘for it is directly in the teeth of several express de~*-l

clarations of y our Saviour: “ I have not found so
great faith_,vno, notin Israel,” 850. “ 0 Woman,
great is thy faith ; be it unto thee even as thou

wi1t_.,”i&c. ‘ I pity the man from my hea1jtvvho

would lower the benevolence of Jesus to the level
of his own ecclesiastical prejudices; “ 'rIy‘hat such
incidents furnish a‘ an evidence of the ‘mind. and
character of the Redeemer’ may be admitted; but
not such an evidenceas Mr. Grinfield contends for.

He affirms,”that it would be altogether incredible to  

imputeharshness" or indifference about millions to
One, Who" could thus compassionate individuals,” (p.

177 ‘l “ Hence it must obviously be inferred, that '. '

such harshness and such indiffeience must bfeirnputg
ed to that“bene’ficent Being by all whoquestion the

33

universality of his redemption,” p. 344. I cannot
help the inference which arises from any fact of our

Saviour’s life. My argument is incontrovertible, and
it is this, that Without manifest absurdity we cannot
impute such conduct to the Almighty Saviour of the
World, ergo, i&c.   i ii   ii i A

As for the manner in which this critic attempts
to elude the force of my argument it is nothing to

the purpose.i   The destruction of millions and tens

of millions by storms" andearthquakes has inorela--
tion to the inevitable destruction of a single soul in
hell. i This World is a state of trial, and as such all
temporal losses and accidents can be set right here»

after, but if a single being has come into the world i

without the means of salvation,‘ or in other Words,
if a single being iperishes not by his own fault, but

by the will and intention of the Deity, 1 there is an  

end to the Divine beneficence. In all such cases,
the indirect mode of demonstration seems perfectly
satisf'actory.

“ Sect. lv. p. 180. In reference‘ to the precept

that We are to ‘love our enemies,’ the author re--i

marks, 1‘ certain it is, that if We could believe that

the great body of mankind vvere excluded from the
capability of salvation, we should be deprived of.

every motive to“ love them, and they would then

stand nearly in the same relation to us as the fallen

angels.’ ‘ No man is called to exercise greater bene-

volence “than the Deity Whom’ he adores. If then
4::

34

the Deity be partial and austere, reaping where he
hath not sown, and gathering Where he hath not
stravved," his worshippers Will naturally indulge the
same emotions,’ (p. 180.) Here then again we

find it plainly implied, that a partial redemption
would necessarily constitute the Deity, austere,

malevolent, to and iniquitous; and We have, besides,
the scarcely less reprehensible notion" that created
and falliblebeings would be authorized to imitate
the Almighty in the manifestations of his mysterious
severity, It is diflicult to figure to ourselvesa more
pernicious or presumptuous imagination.~” P. 345.

To this I reply in the language, of Barrow, “ We

are commanded to pray, intercede, and give thanks-
indifferently for all men, even for heathens and per-
secutors, as for the‘ objects of God’s benevolent‘
affections, Whom he would have to be saved and to

come to the knowledge of the truth; expressing
ourcharity in conformity to the unconfined good-
ness of God. a Very good reason, argues St. Chry-
sostom, there is why we should pray for all men, for

if God doth will the salvation of all men, we,‘ in.

imitation of him, should do the same.” Serm. lxxi.

Sect. 6.——-—What pernicious and presumptuous imaé-uh

ginations ! V i

A “ And then,” he adds,“ supposing the heathen,
so long as they remain unconverted, to be incapable
of salvation, is there no difference betvveenthem
and the apostatespirits? Are they to be placed

35

like devils beyond the pale of all human‘ charities,
and to he denied all kindly and benevolent iofiicesl?
Is it to be forgotten thaty l a heathen rmzy Ewe re-
claimed, and thus, at least, may become an heir of
salvation, hut that the fallen angels are incurahly
Wicked and malicious? If it would be allowable,
to treatan insalvable heathen as an abomination,
so long as he should remain a heathen, in What

light are We now to regar~d a wicked   man   so long

as he continues iinpenitent ?” i P. 34:5.

  It Wonld ibeldifficult to select at more preeionsi
speciirnenof [purest jargon than this.   By the salva-»
bility of the heathen, I have all along meant no»
thing more than that they were admitted,‘by virtue
of the irederniption of Christ, to the caprrbilitgy of
beingsaved, land that Whilst their ignorance of
Christianity was invohintary, they were not expectedi
to possess any Christianfaith,bnt would be rne1*cifully
dealt with according to their individual deserts;

But What jargon is this---“ if i it would be allowalole .
to treat an iozsaleaiile heathen as an aboinination, n,
so long as he shouldremain a heathen, in what light 1
are we tovregard a WlGl{é(l.'1illE11’l, so long as he con» i

tinnes iinpenitentff’  3416. But who ever rega1'ds
a Wicked Christian as énsaloable? Go back, my
friend, to your old rejected hypothesis. Itis far more
nnerciful (though equally absnrd)Vto condernn the
laeathen fo1*lw2:m2fi of *’C72:7"Z'.S‘Z‘~Z.(Z7Z‘f‘(&Z.Z‘/ll, than to leave
them oi1t»of the covenant and oharter of Christ’s re--*
(1 2

36

dernption; because, in the one case, the qualifi-
cation may be supplied by conversion, but in the other
they are rendered utterly incapable of the title. A

Section lxii. p. 192. “ The Son of man shall
come in the glory of the Father with his angels;
and then shall he reward every man according to
his Works.” Matt. Xvi. 27. or “From these words
the author conceives it to follow, ‘ by plain and
incontrovertible inference,’ that Christ now stands

towards the heathen in the same relation,'as though,

they had been personally acquainted with his me-
diatorial character.‘ He reasons thus : Since Christ
is to judgie all mQn,"“ he must’ bear a previous
relation to all; he couldbear no previous relation
to men A othervvise than as their « Saviour and Re-

deemer, therefore Christ is the Saviour and ‘Re;

deemer of all men.” P. 346.
If this reasoning he not conclusive, I cannot assist
my reviewer by explaining it; he seems to Want

some power of ‘deduction vvhichis necessary to A the

simplest process of argumentation. Need I remind
him, that the Whole reasoning of St. Paul respecting
the priesthood of Christ, “ it Zmcomze us to have
such an high priest,” is dependent on the same
principle? But perhaps I ought to have taken,

blame to myself that I did not improve this argu-

ment by a reference to Christ as “ the life and
resurrection” of all men. “ As in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made“alive.”. And

37

now, if the ieeatlzen are to be raised again, as well
as Christians, in virtue of Christ’s resurrection, I
put it to any one to say, whether he must not bear
to them a federal relationship, and whether this re-
lationship be not that of a Redeemer as well as of
a Judge. a r e
.t In sect. lxiv. p. 207, it is   asked, with reference
to Matt. xviii. 12. i“ If it be the will of our heavenly
Father that not one of these little ones should
perish, can we suppose it possible that he has
created millions of adults, without any capability
of Working out their own salvation?” _ l
“ This appeal to the compassionate nature of the
Deity, We have before had repeated occasions” to
expose as Worthless in the Wayof argument, as
an unfair, a very unfair resource of controversy."
P. 347. To this it is easy to reply, that when the

will of our heavenly Father has been revealed and
declared by his Son, we cannot appeal to any higher,

evidence. a It is, in short, the method which our
"Saviour and his Apostles have frequently adopted.
“ If God so clothe the grass of the field,” &c. A
i It is quite unnecessary to follow this Writer into
his prolix dissertation about the term “ Will” as

‘applied to sGod. Such expressions are perfectly

intelligible to all but the followers of Archbishop
King, and the pupils of the new A?cademy. , Let
him save himself all further trouble by recollecting
his own admission, “ that the language of Scripture

38

isthroughout popular, and that it has little or no
technical regularity or scientific precision.” P. 338.

In sect. lv. p. 227. he objects to the introduction
of Christ’s praying for his murderers, as having no

connection with the ‘question of the salvability of

the Gentiles, p. 348. If I am to be blamed for
this illustration,’ let Barrow come in for the prin-
cipals share. “ His ‘prayer for themimplies the
possibility of their forgiveness.”, “ The case of the
Roman centurion and of the repentant thief, I have
already left, without comment, tothe consideration
of my readers,” p. 227, and there I am content still
to leave them. W‘ . y ’ , >

“ It is asked in page 228, how any partial bene-;~
fits can reasonably be imputed to him who exclaimed,
*‘ And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me ?’
John xii. 32. I This passage, however, will be found
to be but a treacherous auxiliary to the cause of
universal redemption‘. If it proves any thing re-
specting the extent of; redemption, it .may‘ be
used to prove that none can ultimately perish.”
P. 34.7. p r y         

This is making short work of an argument. I
have never confounded. the question of the salva-
hility either of Vheatliensorr ‘Christians with that of
their final salvation.‘ . It is sufiicient that all men
are clmwrz, by the atonement of Christ, into the
capability of n being saved, and into connection with
him as their federal head and Redeemer; but to

39

assert that because he is the Saviour of all men in
this sense, he will be the Saviour of all hereafter,
this it never came into my thoughts to imagine.

“ In sect. lxxiii. p. 236, it is said, ‘ Admit the
doctrine of irrespective election and reprobation, as
it regards ages and nations, and you cannot disprove
it as relating toindividuals.’ A more egregious in—-
consequence-cannot well be imagined.” P. 349. If
so, why does not my reviewer undertake the point ?
The late Mr. Scott, who was as profound a Calvinu
ist as any of this age, in conirnenting on the articles
of Dort,Was of thesame opinion. “i The election
of nations is really as opposite to the anti-Calvin~
ist’s ideas of justice, as the election of individuals.”
P. 226, I believe the was perfectlycorrect in this
assertion,—i—-—"‘ fas estab hoste, &c.” “ Thateither of
these , doctrines necessarily involves the other, is
rnoret than any human being can be entitled‘ to pro-~
nounce.” P. 349. lit is‘ a bad sign of any cause,
when such a continual appeal is made to our igno-
rance. “ Perhaps the lxxviith section,” he con-
tinues, “ furnishes as reniarlzable a specimen as any
in the book, of the author’s resolution to extort
testirnonyl from the Scriptures, as it were by the

iraicl<.«i”t In this section I have endeavoured to shew,

from Rom. viii. 18-22, that as the Whole crean
tion was awaiting the manifestation of W the Son of
God,and vvas groaning and travailing in pain to-

, gether, even until the coming of Christ, we had

/;l«

40

suflicient“ reason to apply these expressions of the
A.postle in the most universal and comprehensive
sense, a as ‘1‘8lfa.tlV6~fO the Whole body of man-
l<i‘nd.' “Does it not tseem probable that the ex--
pressionsof the Apostle are to be taken in their
utmostlatitude, and if so, do they not imply that
all the heathen have been brought into a saleable
nondition, ‘through thetrnission of Jesus Christ?” P.
3289.   i It is for putting this ‘query in such a moderate
and guarded manner, that I am thus rebuked by
thiskind animadverter. “' Who would ever think
of confidently deriving, merely from the confusion

aan'dWretchedness which are prevalentiu the World,

any inference Whatever?” P. 350. . a

  ‘Sect. xciv. p.302. ‘? The ‘T loveof Christ con-~
straineth us, because we thus judge a that if one
died for al ,” 82:0; “ The beauty and force of this
reasoning, says Mr. Grinfield, would be altogether
lost, if it could be shown that the great majority of
xnankind were not included in its meaning. This
is by no means obvious. The love of yiC.hrist would
be a constraining motive with sincere Christians,

even on the exclusive system; unless it can be

shown that our attachment to a benefactor must be

 weakened or destroyed by the knowledge or belief
that his bounty is chiefly directed towards our--g
selves!’ P. 350. Let Barrow reply,~-—---

“ No man should be puffed up with conceit, that

  Goclliathasinagular regarcl to him. For all such

4«1

conceits are-groundless and vain ; in themamen do
miserably delude themselves. No man‘ should be
discouraged for this condition or fortune; since in

allotting it to him God had no disfavour nor did

intend him ill. God hath no less regard to him
than to persons of the most high, Wealthy, pros-

lperos state.” Serm. LXX.

. My reader will observe, that the critic has taken
no notice of the extent of the terms, on which this
observation was founded.-----“ If one died for all, then
all were dead,” &c. This was prudent.‘

. ,“ The reasoning in sect. xcix. p. 313, is wholly
inconclusive. How does it follow from the proper
divinity of Christ, that the redemption which
he has effected must be necessarily universal, that
because he is the maker of all things (he might
have said of all men) he must be the Saviour of all

' men 2'”. j P. 350. I blush to copy such strange ques---
tions. I had supposed that the perfections of the

Deity were to be ascribed to my Saviour ; that as
God”“'Was no respecter of persons,” so the same as»
sertion might be predicated of the Son of God. But

. Ivrill not debate this subject with a man who is in-

capable of any large and comprehensive reasoning.
.“ In sect.“ c. p. 315, the author affirnas “that
the partial scheme tends to rob the Redeemer of a
great part of his glory.” P. 350. Thousands of
divines have said this before me. I am but re--

peating what every anti-Calvinist writer has re-

as‘
peatedly aflirxned, and i What We must continue to
afiirrnt so long as we make any deductions at all;

i “ The Words quoted in sect. ciiqi p. 319, ‘ Those
that are without, i God will 9 judge,’ though « em-
ploig/eclZ2ys tizes~ApostZei for at cZg'fi"ere72t purpose,
are calculated to give just theproper direction to
our thoughts on this mysterious question.” P. 351.
Here is a fine ipsecZ'£zvz't ; the words are employed
by the ApostZe for at clzjfereizt purpose ; and yet
he d1+aWsefi*oInthem an inference against the salva-
hility of the heathen. VVho now is acting the
logician? Is not this summoning to your aid “ fee-
ble lamcltiitxieacherousarguments C?” ?v i i

i “ The text  tTin1§iiivLt1t5O, quoted‘ in!‘ sewct.iciv.
p. 323, isundouhtedly a potent authority in ifaxiouf
of (Universal Redemption  and yet,poWerful as it is,
the autho1"s“vindication‘ of it isahnost calculated to
weaken it and render it suspected. He observes,

thatthe Wbrdowfzip cannot here be taken to signify i

aiiPrese:rve'r,. in ~ the ordinary sense of the word, a for
thats preserv9atiohi'ofi “men  this::r1ifei Would“ be a; curse
if it were to end in idetstmction he1‘eaftei~‘!i 7a posi--
tion Vwhicth would he sufficient: to prove, that God
cannot justly he i gentitledithe Preserver of all or any
portion of imanliind, unless it can be shewn that
the irnpenitently Wicked   shall be annihilated at their
death 2” P. 351.   .  s   s     
  My »argument»on this subject is precisely the sanie
as Dr. ]3ai1"1é0W.lha'Si repeatedly urged in his four noble

43

discourses on . this s.texta.uo Iappeal toxhis plautl1o1~ity
fromi all such absurdmisrepresentations,»g land the

same authority will .beary1ne out in his auinf1atd:Ver%-

‘sion on Heb. ii. 9; “that he might taste of death for
every man.” “' Subjection and redemption are here
one ground, so are they implied to ithesameiiex-
tent. \ As every one must calllChrist Lord, so may
he it call him Saviour. Therefore his Lord became
his Saviour. ‘And since Christ has got an autho-
rity over all men, a property in to every man ;   since
he has undertaken to ‘govern and ~pro.t'ect theworld,
l1el:q'2testio7zZess, was ga  prince of incomparable obe-
nignity and clemency, doth seriously intend and
desire the best Welfare of all his people. It surely
cannot be a small benefit to the community of men,
that they are his subjects, the objectsof hisrprincely

icareandi of his mercy.“: .3 ‘ He taketh care of all,

wvhiizh dothbecome him, and cheuis~Lordo'fa1L afornthat
he is indifferently the Saviour of ialli,’:~ssaithrCtlement
of AleXandria.”i Barrow, serm. lxxi.; Whatarelief
to enjoy the noble speculations of Barrow, after the
feeble and narrow sophistriesi of this most incom+
petentacenson    ‘ Q  w  W’  S g:
j ‘*7 Insect. xcv. pf. 327, it misraeasserted that to sup»
pose Christ’s redemption to be partial -is todeuy the
divinity of his atonement.   Let us then fora. mo»
ment imagine that God chose to‘redeem only a
portion of mankind. Is the author prepared to

assert that this could have been accomplished bya _

4.4

less costly ransom ? The blood of the incarnate Son

is precious enough to redeemiinnumerable millions.

But Who can venture to assert that lessthan that
blood would have been sufficient to redeem one 2”’
R351. , * I   I I 
I have never made any such assertion; But
arguing as I have done all along, not Wlllll Cal-
vinists, but with those who profess to iaclmit
the doctrine of zmz"*z5e9*sczZ rcdcrrzption as relative
to the members of the Chum/2, I cannot allow any
such supposition as this---“ if God chose,” &c. it
Sect. clx. p.335. Those to be redeemed are
“ outof every kindred, and tongue, andpeople, and
nation ;”- from this I have inferred, that unless all
tongues, &c. were in the capacity of being saved, I
did not see how the promise could beaccomplished.
He replies, that notwithstanding the rejection of
all the Heathen, an overpowering mczjorizfy might

still remain on the other side! I am at a loss to

know on what data he is calculating. For this
could only be accomplished by supposing that We are
living in the earliest infancy of the world, and that
millions of years should intervene before the con-
summationof all things. If so, he stands opposed
to all the commentators on prophecy. I s

And thus have We arrived at the ‘close of the
objections which have been brought against my
Work. r Whether I have sufficiently replied tothenr
must be left for the public to decide ;‘ but it may

45.

surprise many to be informed, that in nearly all
those Sections which relate to the New Testa-»
ment I am countenanced by the direct authority of
Barrow. The title of his celebrated discourses on
this subject is "" The Doctrine of Universal Redemp-
tion asserted and maintained,” and I appeal to these

discourses Without any fear of contradiction, that they
do assertand maintain this doctrine in reference to;

the Heathen with equal positiveness and dogmatism
to any thing which is advancedin my treatise.  
, What, then, is the head and front of my ioffence?

e That I" have ventured, after twenty years’ medita-

tion, to bring forward a regular and digested trea-
tise on the doctrine of Christ’s redemption, in re-
ference to the salvability of the millions to Whom a
knowledge of the Gospel has not been impartedy;--
thatl have brought” the Whole history and doctrine
of the Scriptures into connection with “this iiarguu
ment ;———-that I have carefully guarded my inferences
against all abuse as relating to our obligations

of spreading the revelation wherever We are aided,

by Providencef;---~and that _l have associated my.

conclusions with the most important controversies;

againsto the Calvinist,’ Unitarian, and Deist, by shew--
ing, that when the salvability of the Heathen is iden-
tified with the received doctrines of orthodoxy, we
shall stand on such a vantage ground as must lead.
to a universal triumph. ‘p o

What, on the other hand, is the ‘attempt of my

46

assailant? Whilst he professes himself ‘to be anti--V

Calvinistic, he gives upaevery point indispute to

the Calvinist ;——-e-lie will not allow that as. all ‘men

fell i1’1"..A(lE!.lTIi_;... sosfalllmulstiliave beienw recleemediby
Christ ;~—i-4- that i if e Chrsistt "be. “the   C.reator?,, and the?

Restirrection, and the Judge ioffall semen‘, he ‘must?

necessarily be ’ the Redeemer ofall ;--«that if: all meii

are  living in ‘  state io£ltiia1. 'alnclt‘4p"robation; they
must necessarily all be in a isalvableTcconclition 
that the very attempit to convert the Heathen,:on.C
a9zZi~CczZci7zz'sticp9~i9zc@9Zes, preésupposes soarzeof V
  them to be ‘in; this > state ;4-wthat such plain s;~declara~ei

tionst as these, 5"," God is norespectetriof persoiisrj’ “hell

Willeth not the deaths~oif‘i:ai isi1‘iI1erj’si we will rewarcl
every.maneacco1‘cling* to What’lie ihath,h’*’ ‘j‘ he 0 is the

Saviourlof all menf: :&c. obinlcl upthis conclusion not.’
only i with the doctrine, but with the morality Of‘
the Whole inspired volume.; ‘        i A as   

But I am told that Ijought not to have asse’rte<l:

tha1i’jT’a§;}i.3él.t1? articles Llof   faiths which cleans at most be
shewn xtonly ‘to; that aihi§.'matteriii"7of* hopes:ax1<lLopiniloi1.r
I P this he the case, l.why:tisI“lthe chilciashlinstiluctecl to
repeat in the C‘eatechism“ that “ Christ hath   re-.
deemed me and all maiikind 1"’  tl1oi;Wes. assert
in ourfsacrameiitalfserviceg."that Ff Christ hasmadei
all;c£u11“;; ,.13erfect,  sufficienit =lsacrifice, ololation,   and
satisfaction eforil the A ‘sins’ of   the whole; world .9” 
will not   yield one jot to tlfishreiiieweri 0rr§’Qt‘0 anyt
other man’my~Iatitacl1ment to: the Ghurch ,Of‘Wl1lCl1

a fessing Christians.

47

I am an unworthy minister. I believe the Liturgy

of that Church to be built on the assumption, thati
the scheme of Christ’s redemptionis designed for
the benefit of the Whole human race. I have merely.

followed out the doctrines of my Church to their.

fair and legitimate conclusion, and have shown,»
that unless these doctrines be maintained in all their

fullness and extent in relation to the Heathen, they
cannot be consistently maintained as relative to pro-
- Doesthis writer? suppose that the dogmatism of
Calvinists canever be put down by the scepticism

and neutrality which he recommends? Does he _

think that the objections of Deism can everbe re»
futedby arguments which are drawn merely from
our supposed ignorance ? Does he think that Uni-

tarians are to be convinced of the ‘ydiyinity of Christ,
Whilst heleaves it at matter of doubt whether Christ,
C has died for the benefit of all ? Wliat would become
of the whole reasoning of Bishop Butler’s Analogy,
if we are not allowed to believe in they univer-»
sality of the ‘ Christian dispensation '2 it Of all l3l18’_-
schemes  which have ever been jproposed, that of

ecclesiastical Calvinism in a Protestant Church is
the most odious, by which “”I:’ myean the profession of

confining they mercies of God Christiito the mem--
bers of the Church, to L the itexclusion of the great ~‘
body of mankind ; wandof all the schemes of scepti--L
cisinjwhich have ever been brought forWa1*d undera

48

the mask of Christian humility, the most dangerous

is “that of ‘ pretending, that We have a, revelation
from Heaven which has not determined Whether the
great majority of mankind have any trial or pro?-
hation afforded them; which affirms that we knorv

nothing about the attributes of God; that the

plainest declarations of C Scripture are not sufiiciently
plain to inform us; that the goodness, justice, and
mercy of God are not of the same kind as the good-

ness, justice, and mercy of man; in a Word, that

We know less of do the divine attributes, though em--
bodied in the example and person of Christ, though

explained in the writings of the Evangelists‘ andi
Apostles, than Plato or Tully, who deduced them?

2 from the speculations of philosophy. ” '   C it
i It was in ‘opposition to this new "school of Christian

Academics, that I stood forward on a former occa-A-
sion to Warn the Church of England and the public

of the insidious ‘dangers which lurk in their Writings. i

Under the specious pretence of avoiding dogmatism

and of opposing presumption, they are, in fact,

takingfrom us all the firmness and solidity of those
principles, on which the evidence of natural as Well

as of ‘revealed A theology ,must ultimately depend.
If We may not appeal to the love and mercy and

justice of God» in the same plain and intelligible

manner asiour predecessors, there is an end to our
controversyfi with the advocates ‘of arbitrary ode»

crees. If the plain Wordsof Scripture arenot ad»

49

mitted to contain a plain and intelligible meaning,
I know not how the cause of sound doctrine is to
be maintained against the Unitarian,‘ nor evenhow
the sanctity of the Bible is to be advocated against
the avowed unbeliever. Let us not be deceived by
unmeaning professions of Christian humility, nor

by equally unmeaning appeals to the ignorance
and short-sigihtedness of man. We undertake to

decide {these questions on theground and on the

authority of reive1ation,i not bythe mere light of

the human understanding. The point at issue is
to be deterniined byian appeal to the Scriptures, and
it is to this tribunal that “I have solely directed my
appeal. W But I cannot allow that it is possible the
Scriptures should not have decided the point either
one Way or the other. The Calvinist boldly aflirnis

the Heathen are excluded front thebenefits of Christ’s A

redemption; I as boldly aiiiurn they are included;
then comes the Critic and says the matter is uncer-
tain.   Now, I say, this is incredible; for the Whole
spirit and tenor and history of revelation must have
decided either for the partial or the universal scheme.

As Well might you affirrny that a mansion may be“ at

once large and small; that it may be fitted to con-
tain few or many. No. It is a question which must
be decided either on one side or the other. As for
the doubteacs on this subject they are good for

nothing; and Wemay apply to them the words of

D

50

Christ: “ he who is not for us is against us; he
who gathereth not with us, scatteretlif’

The best, the ablest divines of our Church, I
aflirm, have been equally positive and dogmatic with
myself on this subject, and that it never entered
into the minds of Barrow or Taylor, of Tillot-
son, Clarke, Sherlock, or Butler, to entertain any
doubts Whether the scheme of Christ’s redemption
relates to all mankind. Even the most eminent of
What are termed “ the high Church divines” have
virtually come to the same conclusion, nor have
they been more cautious in their manner of ex-
pressing it. C “ It is to be observed,” says the present
learned Bishop of Durham, “ that although a very
great proportion of mankind, in the times preceding
the Christian dispensation, were comparatively igno-
rant of revealed religion, and of the great work of
redemption then carrying on, yet will it by no
means follow, that they would have no participation

_ in its benefits. The Scripture solves this difficulty,

by declaring Jesus Christ to have been ‘ the Lamb
slain from the foundation of A the world ;’ slain, that
is, in the Divine purpose, for the redemption of all

mankind. Here the retrospective effects of this

great sacrifice appear to be clearlyppointed out. It
may be presumed, therefore, that for the sake of
Christ, and through his all-prevailing merits, many‘,

who, in the times of heathen ignorance, strove.

51

to live suitably to that imperfect degree of iknow--
ledge which they possessed, will finally be accepted
of God. Every notion of the Divine goodness or
justice which we can form, leads us to believe, that,
whether the means of grace and salvation, be more
or less clearly revealed, he will acquit or condemn
mankind according to their use or abuse of the de-
gree of information vouchsafed to them; so that
they who, under the Gospel Dispensation, have
gathered muclr, will have nothing ever, and they
Who, under the preceding dispensation, gather little,
vvilllack nothing of their final reward.” Bp. Vcm
MiZde9*t’s Boyle Lectures, vol. ii. p. 296. Third
Edit. l

“ I have always concluded,” says the late Arch-
deacon of, Sarum, “ from the consideration that the
benefits of Christ’s death are in some sense co--ex-
tensive with the effects of Adarn’s fall, (Born. v. 18.)
that numbers will be saved through Christ that
never heard of his name, &c. It is not said that
virtuous Heathen will stand upon the same footing
as Christians, nor is it our business to determine
what may be lost in consequence of theirnot having
heard the Gospel; but the Apostle, 1 Cor. v. 12,
tells us they will be judged, and if so, my con-»
clusion is, that through the merits of Christ, they
will receive a reward proportionate to the dispen--
sation under which they lived.” DauZ2e72y’s A1)-
})emli.;v to z‘]zc Guide to the C/tart‘/72., p. ‘£282, 283. ‘

33 2

5:2

It gives me peculiar pleasure to adduce this pas»
sage from the writings of one who expressed him-

self but shortly before his death so much gratified

with my Work on the salvability of the r Heathen.
“ I have always been of your opinion,” he said to

me ; “ I never could bear the sentimental of Beve-
ridge on this subject; and you have placed many

passages of Scripture inisuch a light as I had not
previously considered them.” The reader, I trust,
will excuse my referring to such an authority, now
thatl am charged with arrogance and profaneness
by tliisanonymous opponent, especially as I might
be; supposed to have glanced at Mr. Daubeny’s
writings, in my observations on the distinction of
covenanted and uncovenanted mercies, and in some
other parts of my Work. , To confess the truth, I
was not aware of this passage in “ The Guide,” till
it was pointed out by a mutual friend.  
The circumstances of the times may have turned
my yattention perhaps more forcibly to this subject,
than if I had lived in the days of Barrovvor Sher-
lock. ‘When they argued on behalf of the salvabi-
lity of the ltleathen, they were reasoning only
against the theoretical errors of theological systems.
but these are times when the contrary opinions are
openly avovved, and brought forward as the prin-
cipal motives for missionary exertion. At the   last
meeting of the Church Missionary Societyat Bath,
3. speaker is represented as saying, that he viewed

53

p the" millions of unconverted Heathen," as so many

individuals shut up in a house which is in flames,
or as passengers in a vessel perishing at sea; and
such are the pictures which are continually held
out to incite missionary attempts. But if such sen-
timents are to be allowed as fair deductions from
the Scriptures, how can the Divine attributes be
consistently maintained on the principles of Chris-—
tianity? ‘ If these are to pass as doctrines of the
Bible, it may not the horrible misrepresentations of
Carlile and Taylor at length become current with
many as containing some admixture of truth?

But are errors like these to be combated by
the “ ifs” and “ doubts” of this modern school
of Christian Acadeniics ? Is it by professing “ We

a know no more of the attributes of the Deity than
a blind man knows of colours,” that we   can

successfully confront the dogmatic assertions of
Calvinists ? Born and baptized amongst a class of
Christians, who of all others have been the most
distinguished for their missionary labours, I will

_ yield to no man in the ardent desire to behold
a the [progress of Christianity accelerated by every

practical and judicious measure. But I will not
lend myself to any of the delusions which have
gone forth on this subject. I fearlessly maintain,
that, whilst Calvinists can assist in missionary la-
hours only on the principle that they are rescuing

  certain elect individuals amongst the Heathen,

5%

(these individuals being previously saleable) by
supplying thern with the channel of faith ; that
we, as Amfi- Ccrleinists, must either admit their
universal salvability, or be driven to the absurd and
impious conclusion, that We can supply the Want of
anoriginal faith in Christ’s redemption by admit-
ting them to a membership with the Christian
Church;  

‘ In Whatever light this controversy is surveyed,

it is incomparably the most interesting and impor-
tant of any Which has ever been debated; it in-—
volves all the principles of natural and of revealed
theology, and as such, I invoke theattention of all

professing Christians, nay_,¥of unbelievers, to its con--*

sideration. To my opponent this maypossibly sound
like very strange language, and so it must sound
to every one who regards Theological controversy
as the source of professional advancement, and of
party ‘influence; but to all others the question,
Whether the whole body of mankind, or only a
smiallil ininority, have ibeenw placed in a stateliof
trial and probationl, and whether Christ has died

foriall or only for a few, is a question, I say, which  

leaves the Popish and alliother controversies at an

immeasurable distance. To have been stigrnatized 

as insolent, arrogant, and profane, for awakening
this einquiry, lideem the highest honour of my life
-;-—-it is an accusation which I shall always ren1ern-
ber with triumph.   Butl trust that mensof talents,

55

of large and liberal minds, will give it their serious
atteiition--—-whether as an associate or antagonist, I
should be delighted to behold some individual of
vigorous intellect stepping forward to illuminate
this inquiry. lg

Optat aprum ant fulvum descendere monte leonem.

For myself, I can conscientiously aflirm, that I
have made truth without any dowry the object of
my love and labours; and it is some confirmation of
this assertion, that I have been abused and vilified
by men of the most opposite opinions. Whilst Mr.
Brougham and his friends have derided me as the
advocate of tory principles ‘ii, and as the patron of
every ancient abuse and exploded error, here I am
denounced as arrogant and contemptuous, and as
insatiable “' in the cravings of my libera1:ity.”

Unfit for all parties, how droll  my story,
Amongst tories a Whig, amongst Whigs rm a tory.

But I am satisfied,-——-such has been the lot of
some of the wisest and best of men; and, whether
alive_or  dead, I vvishto be remembered only as “£1:
man of honest, independent, and uncornpromising
integrity. I I

  Secta fuit, servare modern finemquetenere,
Nec sibi, sed totigenitum se credere rnundo. i I  

d~4-_g~n~r¢~a-«are-r¢~awA _ A V

' 3*." «See Edinburgh Review, vol. xiii. p. ‘£06---223.

Posrscnlrr

....-...........
hnlllnblnfl

SINCE the above Reply to the Theological Qua-
terly Was placed in the hands of the printer, I have
found that my work has been honoured with a
brief noticein the last Number of the Eclectic Re-
view. There also I ran: cliarged witha gross igno-
rance and rnisconstruetion of the Calvinistic system,
but for a reason which will probably surprise my
former antagonist not less than myself. I had as---
sumed that the universal rejection of the Heathen
formed an integral and essential part of the Ge»
nevan hypothesis; but it seems that moclesrzz Calvi—-
nism is not to be charged’ with this dogma, and
that the “ cornpunctious visitations” of Cowper and
Newton are henceforth to be regarded as an an»

thentic appendix to the doctrine of personal eleo-i

tion! r . a
My charge against Calvinism, on the subject of
the non-salvability of the Heathen, was founded

on an acquaintance with the incomparable Insti-'

tutes of Calvin, on the statements of Turretine and
4

57

Ridgley, of Gill, and of President Edwards *5. In
tl1e" Writings of these eminent and learned Predesti-«
narians this conclusion is openly avowed, nor do I
find that the smallest doubts were expressed con-»
cerning it at the Synod of Dort. It remains now
to be seen, Whether the creed of Dr. Wardlaw and

“’*’ It is not my wish, as I have already intimated, p. 458, to
make any collection of the “ hard sayings" against the Heav-
thens : but as their rejection is now denied to form a part of the
Calvinistic system, it is necessary that I should point out some
distinct references in justification of my statement. For this
purpose let the reader consultCalvini Institut. lib. 2, cap. xi.
sect. xi‘.-4-Turretini iLoc.7 Prim. Queest.   iv.—’-——Gill’s Body of
Divinity, book vi. chap 3 and 4.-—--Ursini Doct. Christ. Coin-
pend. Pars prim. de hominis miseria, p. 127, edit. Lond. 1586.,
Prideaux, Fascic. Controvers. Queest. vii. “ Qui non crediderit,
condemnabitur ; et sine fide impossibile est placere Deo; uncle
optirna Ethnicoruxn opera sunt tanturn, secundum Augusti-
num,‘ splendida peccccto:.” p. 163, edit. Ozron. 1649. Amongst
the errors denounced by the Synod of y Dort, was that of those

“ who teach that men can so rightly use common grace, which  

in them is the light of ‘nature, and the gifts remaining after the
fall, that by this good use they may obtain greater grace, evan-
gelical or saving, and gradually may obtain salvation itself.”
Sootfs Translation, 1). 145. In Ridgley’s Body of Divinity,
Vol. i. p. 434, &c. he will find the universal rejection of the

Heathen assserted in all its horrors. I am not aware that any i

such “ compnnctious visitations” are to be met with in the older
and more authorized systems of Calvinistic Theology; and it
was for expressing hopes of the finalstate of the more virtuous
Heathen, that Zuinglius has been well nigh regarded as a hero-
tic. See Mz'Zner’s Churclrflistory, vol. v. chap. 16. Consult
also Vossii Theses Theolog. p. 383;--403. Edit. 1658.
E

58

the Ec1e¢ae Reviewer" will pass current with" their
bretliren on this subject. “ We lay it down, with»-
out hesitation, as the doctrine of Scripture, as it is
also the evident idictate of reason, that iresponsibi-
lity is according to privilege ; ' that thepunishment
of offences by the judgment of a righteous God
will be exactly proportioned to the extent in which
the means have been enjoyed of the knowledge
both of duty and C of the obligations to perform it.”
P. 37 5. .

N ow, if Dr. 'WardlaW in this and similar pas-

sages intends to assert, that no one individual

amongst the Heathen will be punished on account
of origirzal sin, but merely for the wczfzml sins

l which he has committed, and that he will he

treated with all the lenity and mercy which can be
shown him under the system of redemption, I have
no hesitation in saying that our opinions exactly
agree. But if so, how is this reconcilalole to the
Assemhly’s Catechism ? It is plain, that the shoe
pinches exactly Where I had supposed; and an at-
tempt is accordingly made to extend the doctrine
of Personal Election to individuals amongst the
unconverted Heathen. This, I suppose, is modem
Calvinism. But What it gains in amiability it loses
in compactness and solidity ; and if once such

pchinks are opened, the system of Calvin must fall

into necessary decomposition. '
That: the great body of the Calvinists do believe
1

59  
in the jneciessary and inevitable. destruction of the
unconverted Heathen is matter of plain ‘and public
notoriety, and it is openly avowed at almost every
Missionary meeting. And if I were a Calvinist, I

would avow the same belief, for I should consider
it a necessary corollary of my principles.

. There is one point, however, on which I may call

for a full and satisfactory counter--statement from this
reviewer. j He charges me with having confounded
“ the universality of theChristian dispensation with
its universal efficiency.” “ The author professes to
treat of the salvability of the Heathen, but he over-
looks the infinite difference between salvability and
salvation,” p. 374.

N ow unless this reviewer is content to stand
convicted of open‘ falsehood and detraction, he will
either make good or withdraw this accusation. In
what part of my work have I fallen into this mon-
strous error? In the ‘ Preliminary Observations’ I
disavow any connection with the dreams of univer-
sal restoration. When all men shall stand around
the judgment-seat of Christ, the Heathen as well as
others, will receive their allotted portions of p2m2's7z-
meat or reward, p. 14:. r If the reviewer consults

   the note, (p./130,) he will find that I have dis-

claimed allsuch arrogant enquiries respecting the
final state of individuals whether amongst Chris-
tians or Heathens : “' As to the method of disput-
ing whether Socrates or Cicero, &c. were saved

60

p individually, we regard it as nothing better than

the Calvinistic doctrine of personal selection applied
to ‘Heathenaphilosophers ; and as Weiutter1ydisap-
prove of the presurnptuous method, when applied

to b‘eZz’eoer.9, we I ciannet 1 be j supposed to n adrnire a it
with regard to others; i They, the Heathen, are i i

universally salvable, pi. e. in a condition in which
they maxi:/l besaved, it in conseqtience ofithe ‘covenant

of God iniChrist ; but, as l‘individuaZs,ssthey Willi be p

judged according to their behaviour, as compared
with theirmeansa ofiknowledge,” p. 274, at passing.

Again; I call on this reviewer, if he has a spark
of Christian charity, or any ipretensiionlto the title
of an honest assailant, to make meithe only repara42-

tion in his power by contradicting this fon1iiand 

monstrous misrepresentation. In their salvadie

Zz‘t;g;,a I have included nothing beyond the state in
which they new are, considered as a state of trial. .

demotion of Christ.” P. 2.;

“ The question is‘, nations to the number  the

Hemflaewtza who shall be saved, but as to their zmz‘-V

oersal capability;  ssalvatiozel

  y rnots.  

i Printed by R. Gxnnnntt, St."Jol;n’_‘s~ Sq1tare,‘London;i-

tizroagk;  iRe-A»