than save them without one? The answer would be, Because he loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.

Peter. On the principle I oppose, the love of God in applying the atonement is much greater than in giving his Son to be an atonement, since the latter is mere general benevolence; but the former is particular and effectual.

James. You should rather have said, the love of God is greater in giving his Son to be a sacrifice in respect of those for whose salvation it was his pleasure to make it effectual, than in merely giving him, as he is said to have done, to some who never received him*. If there was a particularity of design in the gift of Christ, it cannot be ascribed merely to general benevolence. And so far as it is so, we have no right to depreciate it on account of its not issuing in the salvation of sinners in general. It was no diminution to the love of God to Israel in bringing them. out of Egypt, that the great body of them transgressed and perished in the wildernesst: nor could it be truly said that the bringing of Caleb and Joshua into the land of promise was a greater expression of love than that which had been bestowed upon them, and the whole body of their cotemporaries, in liberating them from the Egyptian yoke. And let me intreat you to consider whether your principles would not furnish an apology for the unbelieving Israelists. There was little or no love in God's delivering us, unless he intended withal to prevent our sinning against him, and actually to bring us to the good land: but there was no good land for us -Would to God we had died in Egypt!' To this, however, an apostle would answer, "They could not enter in because of unbelief." And as this language was written for the warning of professing christians, whose inclination to John vi. 32. i, 11. † Deut, vii. 8.

Heb. ii. 19.

relinquish the gospel resembled 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.

Peter. I remember an old non-conformist minister

says, "If any man be found 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 reasoning of the old non-conformist may, for aught 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 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 non-conformist, yet I should not have supposed he would hove 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 Isai. Iv. 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 presumtion.

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 opin

ion, 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 re-consider the subject when you are by yourselves. The greater part of those things wherein you seera 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 +

1

R

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?".

If the reply to these difficulties be founded on the principles 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 unbefief 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