the supposition of possible perfection on earth, is the most fanatic dream, and the most gigantic delusion, which can whirl the brain of a human being. So it appeared to Latimer. "No man born into this world," says he, "is without sin, save Christ only (u).- Who is there, in this world, that hath not need to say, Lord, forgive me? No man living. Nor ever was, nor shall be, our Saviour only accepted (w).There is neither man, nor woman, that can say they have no sin: for we be all sinners (x).

-We be ever in that case, that we have ever need to say, Lord, forgive us: for we ever do amiss (y). -St. Paul saith, let not sin reign in your corruptible body. He doth not require us that we should have no sin, for that is impossible unto us; but he requireth, that we be not servants unto sin (z).There is no saint in heaven, neither St. Peter, or Paul, but, when they were here, their nature was corrupt, and given to wickedness (a).How doth he [i. e. Christ] save us from sin? In this manner that sin shall not condemn us; sin shall not have the victory over us. He saved us, not so that we should be without sin, that no sin should be left in our hearts: No. He saved us not so. For all manner of imperfections remain in us; yea in the best of us: so that, if God should enter into judgment with us, we should be damned. For there neither is, nor was, any man born into this world, who could say, I am clean from sin, except Jesus Christ. Therefore he saved us not so from sin, in taking clean away the same from us, that we should no more be inclined to it; but rather the power and strength of the same sin he hath so vanquished, that it shall not be able to condemn those that believe in him: for sin is remitted, and not imputed, unto believers (b)."

(u) Ibid. p. 388.
(y) Ibid.
(b) Ibid.

(w) Ibid. p. 428.

p. 434. p. 803.

(z) Ibid. p. 453.

(x) Ibid. p. 431.
(a) Ibid. p. 576.

They, who, after this, can set down bishop Latimer for a perfectionist, may, with equal reason, set him down for a free-willer.I proceed,

(8.) To take his vote on the subject of universal redemption.

His doctrine, concerning redemption itself, is, that the people, for whom Christ died, are, by his death, totally discharged from the punishment due to their sins. "It is," says he "much like as if I owed another man twenty thousand pounds, and should [i. e. must] pay it out of hand, or else go to the dungeon of Ludgate: and, when I am going to prison, one of my friends should come, and ask, whither goes this man? and, after he had heard the matter, should say, let me answer for him: I will be surety for him; yea, I will pay all for him, Such a part played our Saviour Christ with us (c).” -Elsewhere he repeats the same illustration; but in yet stronger terms: "In such distress cometh a good friend, and saith, Sir, be of good cheer; I will pay thy debts and forthwith payeth the whole sum, and setteth me at liberty. Such a friend is our Saviour. He hath payed our debts, and set us at liberty (d)."

From these premises, it incontestibly follows, that not one of those for whom "Christ payed all," not one of those for whom he discharged "the whole sum," not one of those whom he died to "set at liberty" from punishment; can be finally condemned: since, if condemned and punished they were to be, either the justice of God the Father would fail, or it would not be true that Christ had discharged all their debts," and payed off "the whole sum," and really "set them at liberty."

Hence, it is evident, that according to Latimer's argument, Christ was very far from dying for every individual of mankind; it being Latimer's avowed opinion, that very many will, in the last (c) Ibid. p. 211. (d) Ibid. p. 321.

day, be sentenced to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. He supposed, for instance, that unpreaching bishops only will fill up a gap in hell, of seven leagues wide (e). Surely, the "debts" of these, at least, were not "all paid," nor the debtors "set at liberty!" Consequently, if Latimer may be credited, some of mankind must have been left unredeemed. Observe, I am not here professedly delivering my own opinion. I am only deducing the opinion of Latimer, from Latimer's premises.

But his judgment does not stand in need of deduction. It has the seal and sanction of his own express declaration. He peremptorily affirms, that Christ did not die for such as shall be eventually lost. "Mark here," says he, "scripture speaketh not of (f) impenitent sinners: Christ died not for them; his death remedieth not their sins (g).”— Now, if there be any, for whom Christ "died not," and whose sins his death "remedieth not;" it follows, that, in this reformer's idea, redemption is not universal.

His frequently affirming, that Christ expiated the sins of the whole world," does by no means clash with his doctrine in the above passages. Indeed, it is saying no more than the scripture has repeatedly said before him. The point of enquiry is, what does that phrase, the whole world, import? Surely, not every person, without exception, who did, does, or shall exist: for, in that sense of the phrase, it seems impossible that Christ could die for all. Some, for

(e) "If," says Latimer, "one were admitted to view hell thus, and, beholding it thoroughly, the devil should say, On yonder side are punished unpreaching prelates; I think a man should see as far as Kenning, and perceive nothing but unpreaching prelates. He might look as far as Calais, I warrant you." p. 138.

(ƒ) By "impenitent sinners," he necessarily means the finally impenitent: such as shall actually be banished from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when Christ comes to judge the world in righteousness.

(g) Ibid. p. 322.

instance, in our Lord's time at least, were guilty of that sin which he himself has pronounced absolutely unpardonable and would he die for the pardon of those, whose sin, he avers, shall never be pardoned? This would be like a man's paying down an inestimable ransom for such as, he knows at the very time of his paying it, neither will nor can ever be set at liberty. Besides: what shall we say of those many final impepitents, whose departed souls had been in the place of torment, ages and ages before Christ was crucified at all? Full four thousand years had elapsed, from the creation, ere the Messiah was even manifested in the flesh. And scripture will not permit us to believe, that the whole of mankind, who died within that extensive period, were glorified in heaven. Now, it would both impeach the wisdom, and affront the dignity of Christ, as well as infinitely depreciate the value of his sacrifice, to suppose, that he could possibly shed his blood on the cross, for those very souls, which were, at that very time, suffering for their own sins in hell. The tenet, therefore, of a redemption absolutely universal, will not stand the test either of scripture, reason, or the analogy of faith.-Shall we, for example, affirm, that Christ died for the salvation of Judas? The fact seems to be impossible. It is plain that Judas slew himself, subsequently to the apprehension, but antecedently to the actual crucifixion of Christ (h). The soul of Judas, therefore, went to its own place of punishment, before Christ had offered himself in sacrifice to God. And I cannot, for my own part, see, with what propriety Christ

(h) This observation throws light on that passage of Latimer, where he says, that Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as for Peter. Not that Christ actually died for Judas (whose death was prior to that of Christ himself): but that the mediator's blood was as much sufficient (so infinite was its value) to have redeemed even Judas, had it been shed for that purpose, as to have redeemed any other person. A sentiment, to which I subscribe, with heart and hand.

could die to save a person from going to hell, who was actually there already.

Whether these particular topics ever occurred to the mind of bishop Latimer, or not, I will not take upon me to decide. But one would imagine they had: or, at least, that his judgment, concerning the extent of redemption, was determined by considerations equally weighty. For, when he speaks of Christ's having redeemed the whole world, he takes care to apprize us, that he uses this large term in a very restricted sense. My proofs follow.

"God is not only a private Father, but a common Father unto the whole world, unto all the faithful, be they never so poor and miserable (i).

-We know that Christ is offered once for us, and that this one offering remedieth all the sins of the whole world; for he was the Lamb which was killed from the beginning of the world: that is to say, all they that believed in him, since Adam was created, they were saved by him (k)." It is plain then, that, by the whole world, Latimer means no more than the whole world of the faithful, the whole world of them that believe.-One more testimony shall stand for all. "He only hath merited, with his painful passion, to be a Saviour of the whole world: that is, to deliver all them that believe in him, from their sins and wickedness (7)." So speaks Latimer. And Calvinism says the very same.

If Christ died only for them that (m) believe, or in whom faith is wrought; it follows, that faith is an exceeding great and precious gift. It may be worth our while to enquire into Latimer's definition

(i) Ibid. p. 332.

(k) Ibid. p. 557, 558.

(7) Ibid. p. 775.

(m) No objection can hence arise, against the salvation of such as die in infancy (all of whom are undoubtedly saved); nor yet against the salvation of God's elect among the Heathens, Mahometans, and others. The holy Spirit is able to inspire the grace of virtual faith into those hearts (especially at the moment of dissolution), which are incapable of exerting the explicit act of faith.