LETTER V.

SIR,

OUR Letter now before me, though a long

YOUR

R

one, seems not to require a long answer; because it is chiefly taken up, in conformity with the wretched fashion of the times, with indifcriminate cenfures of the established clergy.

You do me the honour to invest me with the office of "

spokesman for the whole body." But having received no commiffion from my brethren to plead their cause, they may probably wish, should they think their defence neceffary, to employ a more able advocate. I fhall only take the liberty, therefore, of repeating what has been already said in my Postscript to occafional Sepáratists, that whilft I would "cordially join with you and every well-wisher to his country, in bearing the most public testimony against that lukewarmness in the cause of CHRIST, that indifference and even daring contempt for religion, which

characterise the present age; and whilst I admit, as in truth I muft, that some of our clergy do not feel that interest for the Christian cause which they ought to feel, and by their injudicious conformity to the manners of a diffipated age leffen that influence which their facred profeffion ought to have in the world; I still am inclined to think, that, taken as a body, they are more wanting in zeal than in knowledge. But upon this fubject, were I difpofed, it would not well become me, fenfible as I am of my own manifold defects, to enlarge." Guide, p. 304.

But though I feel myself justified in declining to enter on the general defence of my condemned brethren, yet it may be expected that I fhould make fome anfwer to what is particularly addreffed to myself.

In page 131 you make an extract from my book, which appears to me to speak plain language; but to you, it seems, it is perfectly unintelligible. Your comment upon it is this: "Now if any man upon earth can find out what meaning, drift, or fyftem is to be collected from the above jumble; or, to use the words of that good old martyr Bishop LATIMER, mingle mangle of law and Gofpel, grace and works; I fhall much extol his ingenuity, efpecially if he can explain the latter part of the quotation."

I thought that I had written with fufficient clearness upon this fubject not to be mifunderstood by any confiderate reader. The idea in my mind upon it, appeared to myself to be perfectly clear; but as an author is not always fo fortunate in his expreffions, as to leave his reader fully poffeffed of his meaning, I am obliged to you, Šir, for giving me this opportunity of reviewing my ground. It is certainly most important ground. As fuch, if it be not maintainable upon my plan, I fhall, upon conviction, be the first to give it up.

In the paffage to which you fo ftrongly object, defcribing it as a mingle mangle of law and Gofpel, grace and works, the pofition laid down is thisthat fallen man, through the redemption by JESUS CHRIST, has been placed in a falvable condition; and that obedience to the moral law upon the Gospel plan is neceffary to render the Christian scheme complete, by qualifying fallen man for (or in the language of the Apostle, making him meet to be partaker of) the falvation that has been purchased for him by the merits of a crucified SAVIOUR.. single Thus far I ftill think the ground firm. The redemption of the world by JESUS CHRIST was general. The benefit of CHRIST's righteousness, we are in

formed by the Apostle, was co-extenfive with the fatal effects of ADAM's fall. Rom. v. 18. If the redemption of the world by CHRIST had placed man in a state of abfolute falvation, all men muft in confequence have been faved.

But even among thofe to whom the Gospel was first preached, we are told, that many were called, but few chofen. So it is in all ages of the church. Many are called by the preaching of the Gofpel, but few, comparatively fpeaking, embrace it; confequently few will be faved by it. What, then it may be asked, did the redemption by CHRIST do for fallen man in general? I anfwer, it removed a fatal ftumbling-bock out of his way; it opened a door which had been fhut against him, and at the fame time furnished him with the ability to enter in at it.

In a word, it reftored fallen man to that right to eternal life, which had been forfeited by ADAM'S breach of the condition on which it was originally fufpended; a right derived only from Divine promise, and which by the mercy of the fecond covenant in JESUS CHRIST was re-established on a different but hemore fecure condition. When we speak, therefore, with reference to man being removed out of the condemned state of fallen nature, into a renewed

ftate of grace under the second covenant, we may be understood to mean, that he has thereby been placed in a state of actual falvation; but when, fpeaking with an eye to his final condition, we say that redemption by CHRIST placed him, not in a state of actual, but of poffible or conditional falvation; a falvation in some measure dependent upon his conduct at measur under the appointed means of grace. A conclufion which evidently follows from the nature of that judgment which is finally to be paffed upon him: for the Son of Man "fhall come in the glory of his Father, and then fhall he reward every man according to his works.”

Poffeffed of this leading idea, the reader will be prepared for the explanation of the latter part of the quotation. "The line between the covenant of works and covenant of grace cannot, I fay, be too exactly or too frequently marked out; because, as man is now circumstanced, the one is a covenant of death, the other a covenant of life."

On this part of my work, I have to thank you, Sir, for the opportunity your comment has afforded me for re-confideration. By reference to the learned Bishop BULL, I have certainly acquired information

*"Difcourfe on the State of Man before the Fall." See BULL'S Works, octavo edit. vol. iii. difc. v.