be humbled, it might be done still more effectually, if we were reduced to the condition of a stock or a stone.

In reply to what is said on the doctrine of grace, and the work of the Spirit, (pp. 1. 93. 97.) little more need be said in addition to the above. Though Mr. B. sometimes speaks of men's inability as being partly innocent, and partly criminal; yet, as was said before, it was manifestly his design, all along, to prove men wholly excusable in their omission of every thing spiritually good. But, suppose it were otherwise; suppose they were only in part excusable; if it be a more glorious instance of grace, and a greater exertion of divine influence, to save one who is partly innocent, than one who is entirely to blame; it must be upon this principle, that, in proportion as criminality is lessened, the glory of divine grace in salvation is increased; and, if so, then the most glorious display of grace that could be manifested in our salvation, must be upon the supposition of our being altogether innocent!

When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, says Christ to his disciples, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do. Luke xvii. 10. From this passage two things are observable: First, That obedience to God cannot merit any thing at his hands. Secondly, the reason why there is no such thing as merit in our obedience is, that all the good we have done, or may do, is commanded, is our duty. From hence it follows, 1. That the very idea of duty excludes merit, and cuts off boasting, 2. That the more attached we are to our duty, as such, the more distant we are from all pretence to merit, or boasting. The very way to extirpate the notion of human merit is, to consider all which we do as being our duty. 3. That, if it were possible to perform any thing which does not come under the idea of duty, then would there be some ground for merit. If the foregoing observations be just, it scarcely needs asking, Which sentiment it is, that cuts off boasting; that of faith being considered as a duty, or the opposite ?

Perhaps it may be said, in answer to this, that, when a man is enlightened by the Spirit of God, it is then his duty to believe. But I think, if it be not incumbent before, it will be

difficult to prove it so at all. In this case, the work of the Spirit upon the heart must constitute the ground of duty; and then it is necessary that the person should know that he is the subject of this work, before he can see it his duty to believe. But by what evidences can he obtain this knowledge? Surely not by his impenitency and unbelief; and yet, till he has repented and believed, he can have nothing better.

If it be as Mr. B. represents, the work of the Spirit must consist in giving us new natural powers. If we have no natural power to embrace spiritual things till we are regenerated, then regeneration must be the creation of natural pow

er.

And what this is different from creating a new soul, is difficult to determine. Be that as it may, the creating of natural power cannot be a spiritual exertion, any more than the creation of a leg or an arm; and so cannot be reckoned amongst the special spiritual operations of the Holy Spirit. Whatever grace there may be in it, it is no part of the grace of the gospel; it is no part of salvation. It is not any thing that became necessary through sin; for it is supposed that man was as destitute of it in his created, as in his fallen state. One should think, therefore, it can be nothing which is given us in behalf of Christ, as mediator; or for which we shall have to praise him in that character to eternity.

Among a catalogue of other bad consequences imputed to my sentiments, they are said to be "distressing to saints.” (p. 105.) This, for aught I know, may be just. They certainly have a tendency to convince both saint and sinner of abundance of sin, which the sentiments here opposed make to be no sin. It is no wonder, therefore, that true saints, by discerning their great obligations, both before and after conversion, to love the Lord Jesus Christ, should now be greatly distressed in a way of godly sorrow. Looking upon him whom they pierced, they mourn, as one that is in bitterness for his first born. But this, so far from being brought as an objection, ought to be considered as a corroboration. That which tends to sooth and quiet the minds of men, by giving diminutive representations of the causes of reflection and grief, is not the gospel. The gospel gives peace which passeth all understanding; and this is consistent with the exercise of the most pungent grief: but that quietness of mind which

rises from a diminution of blame-worthiness, rather deserves the name of ease, than of peace, and is much more to be dreaded than desired.

It was acknowledged, in the former treatise, "that many who have dealt in addresses to unconverted sinners, have dabbled in Arminianism." Mr. B. from hence repeatedly represents me as acknowledging that they tend that way. (p. i. Pref. and p. 100.) This I must beg leave absolutely to deny. There is no such acknowledgment, nor any thing like it; but the very reverse. Mr. B. cannot be ignorant, that many who have maintained the doctrines of grace, have more than dabbled in Antinomianism; and yet that is no proof that the doctrines of grace are really of that tendency.

As to the use that is made of my concession concerning the manner of addressing sinners; such as "Come to Christ now, this moment," &c. (p. 99.) I might refer the reader for answer to the passage itself; yea, to that part of it which Mr. B. has quoted. Surely he had no reason to conclude, that I thought a believing in Christ was a matter that might safely be deferred. He professes to maintain, that men ought to be perfectly holy, in some sense or other; but does he ever say to his auditory, Be perfectly holy now, this moment?'

One remark more on this subject requires a reply. I had attempted to remove the supposed absurdity of addresses to dead sinners, by observing that we supposed spiritual death to be altogether a criminal affair. Mr. B. answers, from Mr. Wayman, "It was man's sin to destroy a moral life, but it is not man's sin that he hath not a spiritual one. It is God's eternal grace that gives life." (p. 102.) To this it is replied, this position requires a higher authority to support it than Mr. Wayman.* If we admitted this sentiment as true, then, it is granted, our manner of address to unconverted sinners would be inconsistent; but we deny it. In order to prove our conduct absurd, it should be proved to be inconsistent

It is not man's sin that he hath not a spiritual one:"-If spiritual life be what we never had, then we cannot be said to be spiritually dead; for death is not a mere negative, but a privative idea. "It is God's eternal grace that gives life."-True; and is it not God's eternal grace that gives to a fallen creature a conformity to his holy law? and yet it does not follow from thence that it is not man's duty to have it.

with some allowed principle, and not barely with the principles of our opponents.

SECTION XII.

SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATÍONS RECOMMENDED TO MR. B. AND THE READER.

THERE is great danger, in all disputes, of running to extremes. Mr. B. thinks my sentiments "the high road to Arminianism,” (p. 100.) and perhaps to "something worse.” (p. 2.) I am not convinced, at present, of their having any such tendency. However, it becomes me to watch against every thing that might lead me aside from the simplicity of the gospel, be that what it may: and I hope I shall so far take Mr. B.'s advice. I hope also, in my turn, I may be allowed, without offence, to suggest a few serious hints to the same end. Mr. B. seems to think all the danger of erring to lie on one side (pp. i. ii. Pref.) it is allowed there is danger on that side, but not on that side only. In general, then, I wish Mr. B. to consider, whether his principles do not tend to lead him farther than he seriously intends to go? Particularly,

If in the course of his ministry, he avoids giving the carnal part of his auditory to understand that God requires any thing of them which is spiritually good, whether it will not be natural for them so to understand it as to reckon themselves not at all obliged to love GOD, to be truly holy, to be the subjects of any internal religion whatever; and whether they do not, in fact, so understand it? Whatever difference there is between these things in the opinion of the preacher, I incline to think, not one hearer in a hundred makes any account of it. They understand it of every thing which concerns the heart. generality of those who would be offended with us for enjoin

The

ing spiritual obedience upon our carnal auditors, would, I apprehend, be equally offended with Mr. B. were he to signify that they ought to worship God in spirit and in truth, or to love him with their whole heart. Were any thing of this sort delivered, and nothing added to explain it away, it is likely the preacher would be interrogated in some such manner as this: How can unregenerate sinners love God, or worship him in spirit and in truth? You might as well call to the dead to come forth, or bid people take wings and fly to heaven. Their business is to attend the means, and if God please to give them a heart to love him, well and good; but if not, to what purpose are all your harangues about what people ought to do? Cease this legal business, preach the doctrines of the gospel, and leave the Holy Spirit to do his own work.'

In the above, no respect whatever is had in a personal way to Mr. B. or any of his friends. What is written, is founded upon such facts as have fallen under my own observation; and, I suppose, that the same causes are usually productive of the same effects, in one place as in another.

Farther: It may be well for Mr. B. to consider, while he professes to allow that men ought to do whatever was in the power of man in a state of innocence, whether his sentiments do not insensibly lead him to excuse men from every thing but what may be done by a wicked mind, without any true love to God, or regard for his glory? Mr. B. when asked in controversy, Whether any internal religion is now required of men towards God, or not?' answers in the affirmative. (p. 72.) But is it a matter which his views of things would ever, of their own accord, lead him to dwell upon? I am glad to see the frankness with which he expresses himself concerning the law of God being exceeding broad. "If the principles I have advanced," says he, "contradict this truth, let them for ever be discarded." (p. 95.) Mr. B.'s meaning, in this ingenuous sentence, cannot be supposed to amount to less than thisthat, if he perceived his present sentiments to clash with the spirituality of the law, he would disown them; and, if he found them to have such a tendency, he would, at least, suspect them. Now, I desire, in this matter, to be determined by facts; and by facts that cannot fairly be disputed. I ask, then,