Williams:
1) 24 Having endeavored to explain and illustrate what I presumed to call “the harmonizing principle,” in reference to the great topic of redemption, I will now advert to his Lordship’s declarations on the subject. It is asserted, in the first. place, that the doctrine of universal redemption–was directly opposed a by CALVIN. His Lordship I hope will excuse me for asserting, in return, that this eminent reformer did not ‘directly’ oppose the doctrine of universal redemption, in the sense now explained, as far as I have been able to collect by a frequent search into his voluminous writings. He admitted a universal price of redemption; but he had reasons innumerable against the notion of an actual redemption of all men from sin and misery. . He maintained that the remedy was universal, and that it was universally proposed to mankind, according to God’s rectoral design; by it not that it was the sovereign design of God by it to make mankind universally and indiscriminately submissive, and compliant with. the terms on which the blessings resulting from it were to be enjoyed. Had this been his design, not one of the human race could perish; for “who hath resisted his will?” If God were to design this, and to exert his power on the heart accordingly, who could prevent him? What CALVIN’S ill digested reprobating decree implied indirectly, is another consideration.
25 CALVIN, however, certainly did ‘oppose’ his Lordship’s notion of universal redemption,–which we now proceed to examine. The explanatory clauses, indicating what wag intended by the phrase “universal redemption,” are these: ‘ namely, that the benefits of Christ’s passion extend to the whole human race;’ or, ‘that every man is enabled to attain salvation through the merits of Christ.’ If by ‘the benefits’ be meant all the benefits, what Calvinist, ancient or modern, ever denied it? But if by ‘the benefits’ be meant all the benefits of Christ’s passion, surely his Lordship will not deliberately maintain it, as it is ‘ directly opposed,’ by obvious innumerable facts. For instance, a clean heart, a right spirit, justification, adoption, divine love shed abroad in the heart, being kept by divine power through faith unto salvation, an introduction to the heavenly Jerusalem, a glorious resurrection, and eternal life–all these are benefits of Christ’s passion; but are they extended to ‘the whole human race?’ If it be said that they are extended conditionally, proposed objectively, or in such a manner that all may obtain them, were it it for their own fault; this I have already admitted. But such is the present state of mankind, that were there no absolute, as well as conditional benefits, it is possible, that not one human being would in fact be finally saved. With his Lordship’s notion of free will as going before, and turning the balance in every instance, while human nature is “inclined to evil,” even in his’ own sense of this phrase, where lies the probability, much less the certainty, of the final salvation of any individual? It is of no use to contend, that God will assist mankind IF they will faithfully employ the powers and talents with which they are entrusted, without producing the evidence of probability, at least, that they WILL do this. But was it worthy of divine wisdom to prepare a kingdom of eternal glory on the precarious basis of free will exclusively,–on a bare peradventure that some would surmount their native depravity, and thus prepare the way for obtaining efficacious grace? That mankind ought to improve their powers and means, is one thing; but that any will do so, without the internal, efficacious grace of Christ ‘going before to give them a good will,’ is quite another. Edward Williams, A Defence of Modern Calvinism: Containing an Examination of the Bishop of Lincoln’s Work, Entitled a “Refutation of Calvinism,” (London: Printed for and sold by James Black, 1812), 192-194. [Some spelling Americanized; underlining mine.]