These passages prove, that there is that in the death of Christ which lays a foundation for any sinner to apply to God in his name; and that, with an assurance of success. But this is no more than I have admitted. In the invitations of the gospel being general, we are both agreed; and also in a provision of pardon and acceptance on behalf of all who believe; and that, therefore, there is no impossibility in the way of men's salvation, but what consists in the temper of their own minds. But this does not disprove either the reality or necessity of an effectual provision of grace in behalf of all who are finally saved.

I conclude this letter by recommending Mr. T. to consider whether his scheme is not inconsistent with fact. If I understand him, he supposes, that "final misery" comes not upon any of the sons of men "by their original depravity, nor by their transgression of the law, but by their rejection of the overtures of mercy." Hence he supposes, that "all who are not saved will be more miserable than if Christ had not died for sinners." (IX. 86. XIII. 120.) Though the above expressions might be considered as meant only of those sinners who hear the gospel, yet his subsequent reasonings indicate that he viewed it as applicable to all mankind. He speaks,

all along, as if our Saviour had not only died for the whole world, but as if the whole world had heard the gospel, and as if none could perish, consistently with the justice and goodness of God, but for their rejection of it. Thus he goes on, bearing all down before him: "If Christ died for all, these reasons for their final condemnation and misery are all perfectly clear and easy; because the provision being made for them, (that is, for all,) AND EXHIBITED TO THEM, (that is, to all,) they could not perish, unless by rejection of that provision. Difficulty and inconsistency is all removed." (IX. 87.) This is talking at a high rate. Thus many a writer, as well as Mr. T. has sat in his study, and formed a theory, and delighted himself with its excellency. But bring it to experience and fact. Is it FACT, that the provision of the gospel has been, or is, " exhibited to all?" Mr. T.'s system requires that it should; and he seems to wish to take it for granted that it actually has; but facts contradict it.

VOL. I

I am, &c.

3 G

LETTER XIII.

Dear Sir,

THERE is doubtless, an analogy between the works of God. Whatever variety there is in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, there are somne general principles wherein they all agree. On this supposition, I argued for the consistency of sinners being exhorted and invited to return home to God by Jesus Christ, though no such provision be made for their return as shall remove their moral inability to comply. Thus, or to this effect, I have expressed it in my Reply.* Mr. T. here complains of the darkness of my reaHow far this is just, I shall not desoning. (XIII. 124.) cide; but this is pretty evident, that there must have been darkness somewhere, or there could not have been such answers given, as there are.

I argued, in the first place, from the appointment of God respecting the time of human life. Men are exhorted to use means for prolonging their lives; and yet the time of their life is appointed of God; and some of them, as king Saul, and Judas, for instance, have been under the dominion of a moral impotency, in regard to preserving life. They were given up of God to their own wickedness, like those who cannot cease from sin; and it was the purpose of a just God, for reasons satisfactory to himself, thus to give them up.

But Mr. T. asks, "Supposing God has fixed the duration of every man's life, has he appointed (he should have said, exhorted) men to use means to prolong their lives beyond that duration?" (XIII. 126.) If self-preservation is a duty, and if God, at all times, exhorts us to exercise it; then it undoubtedly was the duty of Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas, to have used means to prolong their lives beyond the period to which

I did not undertake to prove, as Mr. T. expresses it, "the consistency of gospel invitations, where no provision is made." I admitted a provision, and explained in what sense I admitted it. Reply, pp. 89, 90.† + Page 314 of this volume.

A

they actually lived. ought to have avoided the sword, and the latter the rope. But "has God told us, that we shall certainly die at the time he has appointed, if we do not use the means of prolonging life ?" If I understand this question, it is intended to deny that the time of man's life is appointed of God, any otherwise than on condition of their using means. Doubtless, he that has appointed the end, has appointed the means; and Mr. T. should remember, that he had just admitted the appointment to be absolute, and professed now to be reasoning upon that supposition. But "has he assured us that all the means we use shall certainly succeed?" No, he has not; but I do not see, wherein this difference between the case in hand and the call of the gospel affects the argument. But if we die at the time God has appointed, does he charge that to our account, and say, it was because we did not use means to prolong our lives? Certainly, he does not lay his own appointments to our charge; but he may the time and manner of our death, and punish us for them, so far as they were owing to our sin, even though he has appointed to give us up to that sin. This was true of Saul and Judas, who ought to have used means to live longer than they did, and exposed themselves to future punishment for using the contrary. But "does the great God declare and swear, that he would not have us die naturally, at the time when he has absolutely appointed that we should die? Does he say, we might live longer if we would? that he has called us to live longer; and, if we do not, it is because we will not?" Mr. T. should remember, I was not reasoning from the case of those who "die naturally," but from the case of such who, through their own sin, "come to what is called an untimely end," as did Saul and Judas; and, in these instances, each of his questions may be answered in the affirmative. And a similar instance we have in the case of those Jews who died by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in consequence of their refusal to submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, in Jer. xxvii. 13. which case I would recommend to the close attention of the Pseudo-Calvinists, as well as to that of Mr. Taylor.

The former, and his armour-bearer,

I argued, in the second place, from the appointments of God respecting our portion in this life. Men are exhorted

and invited to seek after those good things, and to avoid those evil things, which,, yet, many of them are morally unable to pursue or to avoid; and God has appointed to leave them, in this case, to their own negligence and depravity.* Mr. T.'s questions under this head, (XIII. 127.) as under the former, are not in point. The question is, not whether all troubles arise from indiscretion, or any particular sin, of the party: if any do, that is sufficient for my argument. If there are troubles which might be avoided, if we would, and if it is the revealed will of God that we should avoid them, that is sufficient. Pharaoh and Sihon were exhorted and invited to comply with the messages of peace that were sent them; and yet they were under the dominion of a moral impotency to comply; and God had appointed to leave them to the hardness of their hearts, in which they perished, and involved themselves in ruin.

Nor is it in point for Mr. T. to allege, that no directions are given in scripture, with encouragements and promises annexed, which the great God does not give power to practise, and with regard to which he has not provided such a sufficiency, as that the practice invariably answers the ends designed by it, according to the tenor of the directions, and promises or encouragements connected with them." (XIII. 128.) All this is granted, both in respect to the things of this life, and also of that to come, and is no more than what perfectly accords with my views of the gospel. I never supposed but that Pharaoh and Sihon had power, strictly speaking, to comply with the messages that were sent to them, or that there would have been any want of sufficiency, on God's part, to have made good his promises, in case they had complied.

I argued, in the third place, from events which imply the evil actions of men coming under divine appointment. The Jews, in the time of Christ, were exhorted and invited to em

Admitting, that, in some sense, Christ is given to the world in general, yet I suppose that it is in the same sense in which the earth is said to be given to the children of men; (Psa. cxv. 16) in which general gift God still reserves to himself the power of disposing in a way of special providence, of all its particular parts to particular persons, even to such a degree, that every individual has a cup assigned him to drink-a lot, which Providence marks out for him.

brace the gospel; and yet they were under the dominion of a moral impotency to comply; and it appears, from many passages of scripture, that God had determined not to turn their hearts, but to give them over to their own ways, which would certainly issue in the crucifixion of Christ, and in their own destruction. As Jehovah had said, long before, to their forefathers, in the days of Jeremiah, Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee; while yet the prophet says, immediately after, respecting those very persons, To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they CANNOT hearken; so our Lord remarked to his disciples, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Thus, of the same persons

to whom the blessed Jesus had said, While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light; it is added immediately, But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they COULD NOT believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.*

Perhaps Mr. T. will say, But they might have had grace before that time.' Be that as it may, it makes nothing to the argument; seeing they were exhorted and invited, at the time in which it was declared they could not believe.

I suppose God has willed, appointed, or ordained, to permit sin. Mr. T. is not fond of saying that God permits sin. I suppose he would not object to the term suffer, which is applied to the existence of moral evil. Acts xiv. 16. He suffered all nations to walk in their own ways; and the term permit, as any English dictionary will inform us, conveys the

Jer. vi. 8. 10. Mark iv. 11, 12. John xii. 36-40.