that of their fathers to return into Egypt, we are warranted to conclude from it, that though the salvation of the saved be entirely of grace, yet the failure of others will be ascribed to themselves. They shall not have the consolation to say, 'Our salvation was a natural impossibility:' or, if they were to utter such language, they would be repelled by scripture and conscience, which unite in declaring They could not enter in because of unbelief.

"If

Peter. I remember an old nonconformist minister says, any man be bound to believe Christ's satisfaction sufficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth. God will never make it any man's duty to rest for salvation on that blood that was never shed for him, or that satisfaction that was never made for him."

James. This reasonining of the old nonconformist may, ought I know, be just on his principles; but it is not so on mine. If satisfaction was made on the principle of debtor and creditor, and that which was paid was just of sufficient value to liquidate a given number of sins and to redeem a given number of sinners, and no more; it should seem that it could not be the duty of any but the elect, nor theirs till it was revealed to them that they were of the elect, to rely upon it: for wherefore should we set our eyes on that which is not? But if there be such a fulness in the satisfaction of Christ as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe in him; and if the particularity of redemption lie only in the purpose or sovereign pleasure of God to render it effectual to some rather than to others, no such consequence will follow: or if it do, it will also follow, that divine predestination and human accountableness are utterly inconsistent, and therefore that we must either relinquish the former in favour of Arminianism, or give up the latter to the Antinomians. But though the ideas of my much respected brother, on the subject of redemption, cannot be very different from those of his old nonconformist, yet I should not have supposed he would have adopted his reasoning as his own. Peter. Why not?

James. Because it is your avowed persuasion that sinners As SINNERS are invited to believe in Christ for salvation, Thus you

have interpreted the invitations in Isa. lv. 1-7. and various others; carefully and justly guarding against the notion of their being addressed to renewed, or as some call them, sensible sinners. Thus also you interpret 2 Cor. v. 20. of God's beseeching sinners by the ministry of the word to be reconciled to him. But your old friend would tell you, that God will never invite a sinner to rest for salvation on that blood that was never shed for him, or on that satisfaction that was never made for him. I should have thought too, after all that you have said of the warrant which sinners as sinners have to believe in Christ, you would not have denied it to be their duty, nor have adopted a mode of reasoning which, if followed up to its legitimate consequences, will compel you to maintain either the possibility of knowing our election before we believe in Christ, or that in our first reliance on his righteousness for acceptance with God we are guilty of presumption.

John. I conceive, my dear brethren, that you have each said as much on these subjects as is likely to be for edification. Permit me, after having heard and candidly attended to all that has passed between you, to assure you both of my esteem, and to declare that in my opinion the difference between you ought not to prevent your feeling towards and treating each other as brethren. You are agreed in all the great doctrines of the gospel; as the necessity of an atonement, the ground of acceptance with God, salvation by grace only, &c. &c. and with respect to particular redemption, you both admit the thing, and I would hope both hold it in a way consistent with the practice of the primitive ministers; or if it be not altogether so, that you will reconsider the subject when you are by yourselves. The greater part of those things wherein you seem to differ, may be owing either to a difference in the manner of expressing yourselves, or to the affixing of consequences to a principle which yet are unperceived by him that holds it. I do not accuse either of you with doing so intentionally but principles and their consequences are so suddenly associated in the mind, that when we hear a person avow the former, we can scarcely forbear immediately attributing to him the latter. If a principle be proposed

to us for acceptance, it is right to weigh the consequences: but when forming our judgment of the person who holds it, we should attach nothing to him but what he perceives and avows. If by an exchange of ideas you can come to a better understanding, it will afford me pleasure: meanwhile it is some satisfaction that your visit to me has not tended to widen but considerably to diminish your differences. Brethren, there are many adversaries of the gospel around you, who would rejoice to see you at variance let there be no strife between you. You are both erring mortals; but both, I trust, the sincere friends of the Lord Jesus. Love one another!

ANSWER TO THREE QUERIES

PROPOSED TO THE AUTHOR.

1. SINCE, on the present constitution of things, men never had a disposition to love and serve God, nor can it be produced by any circumstances in which they can be placed; how can they be accountable for what they never had, and without divine influence never can have ?

"2. If it be said, that man is accountable from his powers and constitution, and therefore that God requires of him perfect obedience and love as the result of his possessing a moral nature; still how is it consistent with the goodness of God, to produce accountable beings in circumstances wherein their rebellion is certain, and then punish them for it?

"3. If the reply to these difficulties be founded on the principle, that from what we see, we cannot conceive of a constitution, which hath not either equal or greater difficulties in it; is it not a confession, that we cannot meet the objections and answer them in the direct way, but are obliged to acknowledge that the government of God is too imperfectly understood by us, to know the principles on which it proceeds?

"The above queries are not the effect of any unbelief of the great leading doctrines of the gospel; but as every thinking man has his own way of settling such moral difficulties, you will confer a favour on me if you will state how you meet and answer them in your own mind."

ANSWER.

If the querist imagines that we profess to have embraced a system which answers all difficulties, he should be reminded that we VOL. IV.

15