HAVING been requested by a Friend, to make such Re­marks on that Part of your late Performance, intitled, A LETTER from Aristocles to Authades, which relates to the Promises, as to me might appear necessary, for the Vin­dication of some of the great and precious Truths of the Gospel; and having taken said Letter, in that Part, under Considera­tion, it appears to me most unexceptionable, in a Matter of so great Importance, as that of the Cause of GOD, wherein (as you acknow­ledge) the eternal Salvation of Souls is very nearly concerned, to appear open and free and as I trust, you will find me equally far from a disputatious Temper, as you profess your self to be, so I hope I shall find my self, by your own Example, secured of a kind and candid Acceptance. Therefore I shall, without any further Apology, ad­dress my self to you, Sir, in what I have to offer on this Head.

Now that our Readers may have a clear Understanding of this Matter, I think it proper to be noticed, that what gave Occasion to your Letter, was a Sermon published by the Rev. Mr. Cooke of Stratfield, in Vindication of the Sovereignty of GOD, in the Dispensa­tion of his special Grace to lost Sinners, on Exod. XXXiii. 18. In the Improvement of which Sermon it is inferred, That there are no Pro­mises of special Grace made unto any Doings of the Unregenerate, by the Performance of which they might become intitied to it. Accordingly your Letter consists of two Parts; the Former on the Sovereignty of GOD, the Latter on the Promises. It is the Latter, that I am here principally concerned with.

Having finished the former Head of Discourse, you introduce the latter in the following Words. Pag. 22. Indeed you was then only un­dertaking to prove, that there are no Promises in the Scripture to the Un­regenerate; [meaning by the Unregenerate, those (whether baptized, or not) who are under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin.]

[Page 10]Here, that I may proceed with the greater Clearness, I shall

I. State the Question.

II. Consider what is offer'd by you to invalidate the Rev. Mr. Cooke's Arguments advanced in his Sermon, in Favour of the Nega­tive Side of the Question.

III. Consider what you have offer'd in Confirmation of the affir­mative. And then,

IV. Suggest a few Things to Consideration which serve, among many others, to persuade me, that the Truth lies on the Negative Side.

According to this Method, I am

I. To State the Question.—Now in Order to this it may be ob­served, That the Question between Mr. Cooke and you is not, Whe­ther there be any Promises in the Bible? Which you seem, wildly enough, to insinuate. (Page 21, 22, 23.)—Nor is it,

Whether there are any conditional Promises made to Sinners in the Scrip­tures?

Neither is it, Whether it be the Sinner's indispensable Duty, in the Use of appointed Means, earnestly to seek after the Attainment of spe­cial Grace?—Nor yet,

Whether God's Bestowment of special Grace upon Sinners be ordinarily in the Way of the Sinners diligent, earnest, and painful Endeavours, in the Use of appointed Means? Nor,

Whether the Encouragement Sinner's have, in the Gospel, to hope that Success may attend their thus seeking, be very great and precious?

Nor yet,

Whether the Sinner's Encouragement to hope for the Success of his En­deavours, rises in Proportion to his Diligence and Painfulness in the Use of appointed Means?—None of all these properly belong to the Con­troversy in Hand.

You do indeed, Sir, charge Mr. Cooke, in some of his Expressions, with denying there are any Promises at all in the Scripture, Pag. 22. But yet at the same Time you are oblig'd to confess, That he was only undertaking to prove there were no Promises, in the Scripture, to the Unregenerate. So that it is evident, you did not really un­derstand him to mean, what you insinuate his Words speak.

But to come directly to the Case.—

The Question properly now before us is, Whether there be Promises of the Bestowment of special Grace, made in the Scripture to unregenerate Sinners, on Condition of any Endeavours, Strivings, or Doings of theirs whatsoever? or, which amounts to much the same,

[Page 11]Whether God bestows special Grace on the Unregenerate, in the Way of performing a Covenant-Promise made to any Doings of theirs whatso­ever; allowing that Promise, both as to the Matter and Being of it, to be of Meer Grace?

The Question being thus fairly stated, the Business is brought into a narrow Compass; and had you proved either of these, both had readily been granted; But Nothing of this Nature hath hitherto been found in your Letter. You do indeed, once and again, insist upon it, That in the final Retributions to be awarded to Men in the Life to come, God acts as a righteous judge of the Behaviour of his Crea­tures, and rewards or punishes according to Stipulation; and that in this grand affair absolute Sovereignty has no Place. Pag. 6, 20.—And who of us ever entertained one single Thought to the contrary? What therefore, Sir, you would be at, in insisting so much on this Point, I am unable to conceive; unless you would hereby insinuate to the World, that the Rev. Author of that Sermon, referr'd to in your Letter, is of a contrary Mind, and if so, you had done well to pro­duce your Evidence.—Or,

Can it once be imagined, that because God acts as a Judge in the final Retributions to be awarded to Men, at the Day of Judg­ment, therefore he acts as a Judge also in the Bestowment of effectual Grace here in this World, while in a State of Probation? Where is the Connection between these Things? Especially, since you concede, That God is entirely sovereign and arbitrary as a Benefactor in the Distribution of his Talents and Favours, both spiritual and temporal, as proper Means of Trial and Probation in this World, i.e. (say you) the various Abilities, Capacities, Priviledges and Advantages be bestows on Mankind: He is intirely at Liberty (meaning as to these Things) to do what he will with his own. Pag. 6.— Now is not special Grace, bestowed on Men in this World, a Favour, a Priviledge, and an Advantage to those on whom it is bestowed? And is it not a preci­ous Talent, given for Improvement, as a proper Means of Trial and Probation here? Especially since, according to your own Notion of Things, it may be, and oftentimes is lost for want of Improvement, and it's Avail to the eternal Salvation of any one, is intirely owing to a due Improvement. —So that I see not, but that according to your own Account, taken in your own Words, the great God is Lord of his own, with Respect as well to the Bestowment of special Grace, as other spiritual Priviledges and Talents dispensed to Men under the Gospel.—

If you say, Nay, but God bestows special Grace, not as a Bene­factor, but as a Righteous Judge of the Behaviour of his Creatures, [Page 12] I answer, This is the Thing you should have proved; and had you done this, instead of explaining your Way of thinking so largely, you had done something to the Purpose: but so long as this is not done, you have really done just Nothing. For it is not Acquaintance with your Way of thinking, which we want; but Evidence, that your Way of thinking is grounded upon the Word of God.

Moreover, it appears to me, you have abundantly conceded, that God acts as a Benefactor in the Bestowment of special Grace, when in Pag. 8. you grant that Every Thing beyond what is just sufficient to render Being desirable, even to a perfect Creature how obedient soever, is Matter of meer sovereign Goodness, in which God may go into what Variety be pleases: Much more (say you) must the whose System of the Go­spel to fallen Man be Matter of meer sovereign free Grace.— Now if the whole System of the Gospel bestow'd on fallen Man, in this State of Probation, be, in an eminent Degree, Matter of meer sovereign free Grace, because it goes far beyond what is just sufficient to render Being desirable, Why is not the Bestowment of special Grace on some of the fallen Race, in this State of Probation, at least in an e­qual Degree, Matter of meer sovereign free Gift? Is not the Be­stowment of special Grace on some of the fallen Race, at least as much beyond what is just sufficient to render Being desirable, as the System of the Gospel; since the former is the End, and Design of the latter?— Again,

You acknowledge, that common Grace is given of God, as a Bene­factor; your Words are, absolutely given in Christ to all, Page 25. By which I presume you intend, Given in a Way of Sovereignty, by an absolute Proprietor. And if so, then I ask, Since God bestows common Grace as a sovereign Benefactor, why not special Grace too? Seeing according to you, special and common Grace differ in Degree only, not in Kind; so that all that is necessary in Order to render common Grace, where it is bestowed on any, special, is only the Addition of some further Degrees of the same Kind. And since you grant, that God bestows some Degrees of common Grace, as a Benefactor, in the Way of Sovereignty, How does it appear, that God never adds such further Degrees of the same Kind, as are necessary to render it spe­cial, in the same Way of Sovereignty? Especially since you grant, as above, that What is beyond what is just sufficient to render Being de­sirable, — God may go into what Variety be pleases. i.e. There is no Objection justly lying against it (according to you) if God pleases to add those further Degrees of [...] same Kind, that are necessary to render common Grace, where it is bestowed, special.

But still more express, if it be possible, is what you say in Page [Page 13] 5, 6. where you tell us; In Order to think clearly on this Subject,— it seems, to you, very necessary to distinguish between the Consideration of God as a Benefactor, and as a Judge: And between the Bestowment of various Talents and Favours upon Men in this Life, which is a State of Probation, and the Retributions to be awarded in the Life to come, accord­ing to what Use they shall have made of them here. In the one (i.e. in the Bestowment of various Talents and Favours upon Men in this Life, you say) God acts as a sovereign Lord of his Favours: In the other, as a righteous Judge. Now is it not certain that the Bestow­ment of special Grace belongs to the State of Probation in this Life, and not to the State of Retribution in the Life to come? And is it not certain, that those endowed with this precious Talent here, will receive a Reward in the Life to come, according to their Improve­ment here? And if so, then, Is it not certain, according to your own Distinction, that God acts as a Benefactor, and not as a Judge in the Bestowment of it? So that, by your own express Declarations, you seem intirely to have given up the Question.— However, I shall r.ow proceed, according to what I have proposed,

II. To consider what you have offered to invalidate Mr. Cooke's Arguments, advanced in Favour of the Negative Part of the Question. Where it is observable, after you have proposed the Question, as above, your first Attack is by way of Query, thus; But, pray Sir, how did you prove it? Why by this Argument; ‘If God had bound himself by his Promise, to any of his Creatures, he is no more at perfect Liberty, either to grant, or with-hold the promised Blessing, as may please him.’—Now (say you) surely if this Argument proves any Thing, it proves that no Promise at all, to Good, or Bad, is consistent with the divine Sovereignty; and so on.—

Here, Sir, you must have Patience with me, whilst: I attempt to set this Matter in a true Light; because, I apprehend, you have at least, when we have made the best of it, here committed a Blundery, and then made your own Mistake the intire Ground of your break­ing out into some warm Reflections upon the Rev. Mr. Cooke, Author of the Sermon referr'd to; as excluding the New Covenant, and contem­ning the holy Scriptures, as an utterly senseless and unmeaning Thing. P. 21, 22. An awful Charge this! and still more so to him that brings it against another, if founded intirely on his own Mistake. Now, in or­der to set this Matter in a clear View, it may not be amiss, to take No­tice, that the Argument quoted by you is fetcht from the Author's Improvement of that Subject, in the Way of Inference, viz: ‘That it is a great Mistake, and of very dangerous Consequence, which many carnal Person under the Light of the Gospel fall into, who [Page 14] will persuade themselves, that they are able (with the common Concurrence of divine Providence in upholding their Beings and Faculties) to do that which hath a certain Connection with, or which shall assuredly issue in, their Conversion and eternal Salvation.’ (Serm. Pag. 16.) That is, as the Author abundantly explains him­self, throughout the following Part of that Discourse, ‘They per­swade themselves, that they are able to do that, which will intitle them to certain Promises of the Bestowment of effectual Grace.’— And having said several Things for the Illustration of this Point, he at length argues in this Form, viz: ‘If God be a Sovereign Dispenser of his saving Graces and Favours, and may grant or with-hold them, according to his meer good Pleasure, as I have en­deavoured before to shew; then Sinners in their natural State have no Claim to the Promises.’—The Form of Reasoning here made use of, is plainly that of an hypothetic Syllogism.—The As­sumption, or Minor Proposition, viz. ‘That God is a sovereign Dis­penser of his saving Grace, and may give, or with hold it, according to his meer good Pleasure,’ This the Author intimates he had before made good. The Consequence is clear and undeniable, viz. ‘That if God be a Sovereign Dispenser of his saving Grace to Sinners, may grant, or with-hold it, according to his meer good Pleasure, then, Sinners have no Claim to it by gracious Promises made by God to any Doings of theirs.’

Now the whole Design of the Author in the Use of those Words (quoted by you) was to confirm this Consequence; and lay open the Inconsistency there is, between God's bestowing saving Grace on the Sinner, in the way of sovereign free Favour, as being at perfect Li­berty, either to grant, or with-hold it, according to his meer good Pleasure,—And his acting herein at the same time in the Character of a Judge or Rewarder, obliged by his Promises to the Doings of the Sinner. And the Words fully answer the Purpose, for which they were used; for if God once makes a Promise to his Creatures, he is no more at perfect Liberty, whether to grant, or withhold the promised Blessing. So that the Inconsistency between these two is equal to that of the same Person's being bound and free, at the same Time, and in the same Respect: Things impossible in Na­ture, opposite States, Contraries, that can never agree to one and the same Person. So that if one of these be true, the other must necessarily be false. Thus it is evident, the Words you quote, do fully prove what they were brought to prove.

Now instead of properly denying any Part of the Argument, or discovering any Weakness in it, you only with great Assurance af­firm, [Page 15] that surely if this Argument proves any Thing, it proves that no Promise at all, to God or Bad, is consistent with the Divine Sovereign­ty: and then where is there any Place for any New Covenant, or indeed Old either? And if the Case be so (say you) away with the Bible sure enough? and so on.

But pray, Sir, think a little, whether you have Truth with you, in what you here affirm. You say, If this Argument proves any Thing, it proves that no Promise as all, to God or Bad, is consistent with the di­vine Sovereignty—With your Leave, Sir, Had you here justly and carefully distinguished, and said, This Argument proves, that no Promise at all to Good or Bad, is consistent with absolute Sovereign­ty, in Respect to conferring the Good promised: i.e. That there­in God acts not as a Sovereign, at perfect Liberty, to grant, or to with-hold the Good promised; because, in that Particular, he hath obliged himself by his gracious Promise: you had expressed your self much more agreeable to the Truth. This is what that Argument was brought to prove, and undeniably does prove.—But, Dear Sir, How does this exclude the New Covenant, or not leave any Place for it? or how does it contemn the Sacred Scriptures, as a meer Imposture, a meer Force, and utterly a senseless and unmeaning Thing? Had you, Sir, kept to Truth in this Instance, you had saved all those hard Speeches, with which you fill up a great Part of three Pages together, (p. 21, 22, 23.)

However, granting, this Argument proves, as is above conceded, yet how does it from hence appear, that no Promise, to Good or Bad, is so consistent with the divine Sovereignty, as to allow any Place for New Covenant, or Old either, or the Being of any Promises at all! This is what you confidently enough affirm, that the Argument proves, if it proves any Thing. But this is your own grand Mis­take: you have, in this particular, evidently gone beyond the Truth. How do you infer, that if God's obliging himself by gracious Promises, to any of his Creatures, be inconsistent with his being at Li­berty to giant or with-hold the Thing promised, then it is inconsistent also with his making any Promises at all, or entering into any Covenant at all! I can't see how God's being obliged by his Promises, when made to any of his Creatures, and so not being at Liberty to perform, or not perform them, as he pleaseth, does in the least militate against the Being of any Promises at all, or subvert the New Covenant.

Further,

Are not the Author's Words, which you quote, and call this Ar­gument, most evidently true? Nay, are they not so true, as that, from Reason, Scripture, and the Attributes of God, it is impossible [Page 16] they should be otherwise than true? For if a Promise made to ano­ther be, in it's own Nature, binding, and God be a God of Truth, who cannot lie, then it is impossible but that, if God makes a Pro­mise to any of his Creatures, it must be binding, and his Truth obliges him to Performance. Which is the Sum total of what is contained in the Author's Words. And if so, how was it possible, Sir, that you should make (shall I say?) such dreadful Work, with a plain, rational, scriptural Truth, as on the Account thereof, to throw out those black Imputations on the Rev. Author! However, I charitably hope and believe that all this, in you, arises from nothing worse than a gross Mistake, and may be imputed to a too hasty Proceeding, without clear Ideas. Yet in Faithfulness to the Cause of Truth, and to you, Rev. Sir, I must observe, 'tis evidently such a Mistake as is very blame-worthy, and scarce excusable.—And that,

1. Because on this Mistake alone you evidently ground all those censorious, and unchristian Reflections you make on the Rev. Mr. Cooke, in your Letter, Pag. 21, 22, 23. Where you represent him as one flying in the Face of the whole Scriptures; denying any Promi­ses at all—destroying the very Being of the New Covenant—and by Consequence, of the whole Design, and Purport of all revealed Religion! This you confess is a heavy Charge, and grieve over the Gentle­ness having brought it upon himself, and then resolve all into this, as the Means by which he has done it, viz. his having asserted, that, If God had once bound himself by his Promise to any of his Creatures, be is no more at perfect Liberty either to grant or with-hold the promised Blessing, as may please him, but is inviolably holden by his own Promise. A Truth, as evident both from Scripture and Reason (and as inno­cently asserted) as any other Truth in the whole Book of God: And yet, by some unknown Art of yours, the Rev. Author must be thus blackned! How is it possible for Innocence it self to escape, where men will allow themselves in such Treatment of one ano­ther?

2. Another Aggravation attending this Mistake, is, that it was committed in a Case so exceeding plain and easy; that it is scarce conceivable, how any one unprejudic'd and duly disposed (though but of a common Capacity) should fall into it.—Had the Case re­quired uncommon Sagacity, deep Penetration, or accurate Discern­ing, in order to distinguish between God's Promises obliging him so as to be inconsistent with his being at perfect Liberty, either to perform or not perform them, when made, and their obliging him so as to be inconsistent with their being made at all,—the Mistake had [Page 17] been much more excusable. But since those Ideas are, not only distinct, but very manifestly so, it is hardly conceivable, how any one should imagine such a Connexion, or so near a Relation be­tween them, as that the one should be infer'd from the other; which is the present Case.

To conclude this Particular, though I am resolved, so far as pos­sible, consistent with Truth, to be on the charitable Side: Yet I can do no less than refer it to your own serious Consideration, whether it be not evidently from your own intire Mistake, at least, that you charge all those frightful Things mentioned on the Rev. Author: And if you find this to be the Case, I would charitably hope, you will give the World Conviction by your Practice, as well as by your Words (Page 1.) That you desire nothing more, than to know the Truth, that you may be governed by it.

You go on to produce some Proof, that there are Promises, in the Scriptures: what no one, I suppose, ever denied. You appeal to any Man of common Sense, that reads the Bible carefully, whether there be not Promises in it: And then very gravely quote 2 Pet. 1. 4. to prove the Point. Here I shall only appeal, with you, to any Man of common Sense, whether this Management be not trifling, and unworthy a grave Divine? But you carry on your Appeal still further, and expostulate, "Whether it be not manifestly the Design and Tendency of the whole Scriptures, from the Beginning to the End, to inculcate these two Points, viz. To put Mankind upon the most vigorous Activity in seeking and pursuing their everlasting Happiness; and then to ascertain to them Success in so doing?" Is it not (say you) one of the first Things you read in Genesis, after the Fall (4. 7.) If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? And the last in Revela­tions (22. 14) Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have a Right to the Tree of Life?

I answer, If these qualifying Words, viz. through well doing, be ad­ded, either expresly or implicitly, to your Propositions, they are both true, and can be made good from the Scriptures: otherwise they are both false; for the Scripture no where puts Mankind upon seeking their everlasting Happiness, or ascertains them Success in the Pursuit, in any other Way than that of Well-doing, truly such in the Account of God, i. e. Doing his Commandments; which being thus understood (as certainly they must be, in order either to their being true, or there being any Pertinency in the Texts brought for their Proof) what is there in them to your Purpose? Will the Con­sequence hold good, That, because God has promised eternal Life to those, who do his Commandments (who in the Way of Well-doing [Page 18] seek for Glory) Therefore he has promised the Bestowment of spe­cial Grace, to the Doings of the Unregenerate, that are under the Guilt and Dominion of Sin?

How then you should once imagine (if really you did so) that these Texts had any Reference to the Question in Hand, is beyond me to conceive; unless it should be supposed, that well-doing in the Account of God, or (which is the same) Doing his Commandments, so as to have Right to the Tree of Life, is what agrees to the Unregene­rate, under the Guilt and Dominion of Sin: which certainly none will pretend to.

Besides, Is it not exceeding clear from the Occasion and Design of those Words, quoted from Gen. 4. 7. (if intended in a Gospel-Sense) That by well-doing there must be meant Nothing short of Compliance with the New Covenant, presenting Services, and Of­ferings to the blessed God with a Respect had to the Mediator, by Faith, for their Acceptance? And is it not expresly witnessed by the Holy Ghost (in Heb. 11. 4.) That by Faith Abel offer'd a more excel­lent Sacrifice than Cain? And if so, is it not certain that Cain's not of­fering his Sacrifice in Faith was his doing not well, so that Sin lay at the Door, and stood in the Way of God's gracious Acceptance? Is it not also abundantly evident, that the Design of the Lord's Rea­soning with Cain, wherein these Words are made Use of, was to point out to him his own Sin, as the true Ground of that Differ­ence (whereat he was much offended) made by the holy God, be­tween his Sacrifice and his Brother's, in point of Acceptance; And thereby to set before him Matter of Conviction, that his Anger a­gainst God, and against his Brother, was intirely groundless?—And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy Coun­tenance fallen? If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? i. e. (according to good Expositors) If thou hadst done well, as thy Brother did, thou shouldst have been accepted as he was, viz. If thou hadst offer'd thy Sacrifice in Faith, with an Eye to the Mediator for A­cceptance, thou hadst been equally accepted of God with thy Brother. And if thou dost not well, Sin lieth at the Door, i. e. If through the Pride of thine Heart, not duly considering thy own Sinfulness, or the infinite Purity of my Nature, and that the Way of Life by the first Covenant, the Way of immediate Approach to, and Acceptance with God, by any Services or Offerings whatsoever, is by Man's Apostacy intirely and for ever shut up, and awfully guarded by a Band of Angels, and a flaming Sword, that turns every Way to keep the Way of the Tree of Life, i. e. that Way of Life by Man's doing the Law, or personal Obedience, the Doing in order to Life pro­posed [Page 19] in the first Covenant, which (it seems) the Use of the Tree of Life, as a Sacrament of that Covenant, was design'd to ratify and confirm, and that the only Way now of Approach to, and Ac­ceptance with an infinitely holy God, for the fallen Creature, is by Faith in the Mediator; If thus arrogantly, in thy own Self-sufficiency, thou hast presumed to approach unto God, and present thy Offer­ing in a meer moral or legal, and immediate Way, and not by Faith in the Mediation of the promised Seed, in this thou hast done not well, so that Sin lieth at the Door: this thy Unbelief binds Sin upon thee, exposes thee to Punishment, and is a Bar in the Way of any the least Expression of my Respect to thee or thy Offer­ing. And of these Things you have had proper Notice, as well as your Brother: therefore if after all you will dare thus presumptuously to approach me in this antiquated legal Way, and not in the new and living Way, through a Mediator, you can blame only your own Folly for the Disappointment you are angry at.

Now that this is the plain Meaning of these Expressions, con­strued in an Evangelical Sense, and in Analogy with the Christian Revelation, is evident. For,

1. It is certain, Cain's Fault in this Matter must be, at least espe­cially, his not offering his Sacrifice in Faith, respecting the Mediator, the promised Seed.

2. It is certain, the Lord's Design, by Reasoning with him, in the Use of these Words, must be, to point out to him his Fault, in this Matter.

3. It is therefore certain, that these Expressions, If thou dost not well, must point out his Fault in not offering his Sacrifice in Faith, and consequently that the doing Well, spoken of as that upon which he should have been accepted, must mean his offering his Sacrifice in Faith: for if his Unbelief was that not doing well, whereby he failed of Acceptance, then his Faith must be that doing well, which would have secured his Acceptance.— Upon the whole therefore, if by doing well here, as spoken of to Cain, be meant his complying with the New Covenant, approaching to God through a Mediator, and presenting his Offerings in his Name, and if this be evidently con­nected with his Acceptance with God, or his having Right to any the least Expression of God's Favour, How is it possible by this Text to prove, or from it justly to insinuate, That the Unregenerate, under the Guilt and Dominion of Sin, i. e. Short of Faith in the Mediator, have a Right to the Bestowment of special Grace, by Vir­tue of some Promise made (though supposing it of meer Grace) to certain Doings of their own?— Whether this be not to pervert this [Page 20] Scripture from it's true Meaning, I refer to all impartial and judici­ous Readers.

But it is especially wonderful to me, Sir, when you seemed to fetch so large a Compass, and carry the whole Scripture before you, from the Beginning of Genesis to the End of the Revelation, as tho' every Page and Line were on your Side of the Question, that on such a Survey of the whole sacred Canon you should fix on this Text in particular, as one most clear and full to your Purpose; a Text which, not only does not contain the lest Shadow of a Hint in Favour of your Opinion, but is a clear and shining Testimony against it!—

For,

If the Performance of that Duty, which as to the general Nature of it, we are sure, and for any Thing the Scripture informs us, as to the particular Circumstances attending it (except the Want of Faith) was agreeable to the Will of God, was notwithstanding this rejected of God for the Want of Faith; What clearer Testimony can be given, That God is obliged by no gracious Promises, to shew his special Favour to the fallen Creature on any Condition, short of Faith in the Me­diator? Was not Cain by awful Experience convinced of this? And does not this Example contain Matter of more powerful Conviction, to all Mankind acquainted with it, than any Declaration by meer Words could do? Inasmuch as it is a Verification of what God has said, in the last Verse of the preceeding Chapter: Signifying, that God himself, as a consuming Fire, is engaged against any of the fallen Race's being entitled to his special Favour, by any Means whatso­ever, short of Faith in the Mediator. But to proceed,

In the next Place you assert a Right, at least a conditional Right to certain Blessings, passed over to us by the Promises.— "What else (say you) can be made of them, but that God designed to pass over a Right, at least a conditional Right to his Creatures of what he promises them?—The Matter and the [...]ing of the Promises indeed (you con­ceed) are of meer sovereign [...] Grace;" But surely (say you) not­withstanding this, when he has been graciously pleased to grant us these precious Promises, it must have been his Design to pass over a Right to us of the Blessings promised, [...] a conditional Right.

Here Sir, I must confess my self unable, with any Certainty, to fix on your Meaning; And while this is the Case, it is impossible for me to determine, what I should think proper to reply, in Case the Meaning of what is said were ascertain'd. However, while by this loose Manner of dealing in doubtful Generals, we are left un­capable of making a pertinent Reply, with any Certainty, to what is intended: Yet at the same Time we are secured, that such Man­ner [Page 21] of Dealing can never prove any Thing against or hurt the Cause, that is thus opposed, except it be in the Minds of those, who are car­ried away by Sounds, without any determinate Ideas. Nevertheless to make the best Guess I can in the Case.—

If, by a conditional Right to the Blessings promised, you mean a Right to Grace and Glory, and every good Thing, pass'd over to us in Case of an upright Walk before God, I readily grant it; and that this Right is given us on the Score of God's meer Grace in Christ. But if you mean (as I think you must, in Order to mean any Thing to your Purpose) by a conditional Right to Blessings promised, a Right to the Bestowment of effectual converting Grace, pass'd over to the Unrege­nerate, on Condition of certain Doings of theirs; in this Case you proceed on a false Hypothesis, and evidently take for granted, that very Point in Debate, and which you should have proved. "In his Right therefore (say you) we must plead, who has purchased this Be­nefit for us, and not in the Virtue or Merit of any Thing we do, which we can only humbly consider as meer Qualifications, necessary to render us capable of receiving what God in Christ hath freely promised.— We must plead.—if you here mean pleading for the Bestowment of effectual converting Grace; and if by any Thing we do being considered only at meer Qualifications, &c. you mean something less than what hath in it the Nature of a Condition, What is this short of giving up the Question? For if there be no Conditions on Man's Part, then special Grace is not bestowed in the Way of God's performing his Promise to any Doings of the Sinner as such. But if, by our Doings being considered only as meer Qualifications, you mean something that hath in it the Nature of a Condition, to which a Promise of the Be­stowment of effectual converting Grace is annexed, then where is the Injustice you charge upon the Author, for representing your Doctrine as asserting the Sinner's Right, arising from the Perfor­mance of such Condition, and his pleadable Claim thereupon to the Good promised?

Again, If, by the Benefit purchased for us, be meant a conditional Right to eternal Salvation, or the Gospel it self, and the Covenant-Promises therein, whence such conditional Right ariseth; it may safely be granted, that Christ hath purchased this Benefit for us.—But if, by the Benefit purchased for us, you mean, among other Things, a conditional Right to the Bestowment of converting Grace, passed over to the Unregenerate, in the Gospel-Promise, or a Right granted them on Condition of certain Doings of theirs, then what you have said in the above-quoted Passage is intirely to be set aside, as founded on a Supposition not true. The Being of the Sinner's Right to the Be­stowment [Page 22] of converting Grace, by Virtue of any Promises made to his own Doings or Endeavours, is the very Thing called in Question and therefore I call it a Supposition not true, and till it be proved, must look upon it in that Light.

In a Word, what you have said above of a Conditional Right passed over to us, and of the Benefit purchased for us, was either meant to in­clude in it the Idea of a conditional Right to the Bestowment of con­verting Grace, passed over to unregenerate Sinners, or not. If this be included, then, for the Reasons above, what you have said here is to be intirely set aside, together with that you have said of the View in which our Doings are humbly to be considered. But if not, then what you have there said, is nothing to the Purpose. And so I may pass on to consider the Grounds of what you further advance by Way of Charge against the Rev. Author, in the following Words.—

"It was therefore (say you) very unjust for you to put Things in such a ridiculous Lights as you did, to talk of owing, claiming, challenging, &c. No-Body ever dreamt of using such Language to God, which could not become an Angel, much less a fallen, sinful Creature, when the Matter, and indeed the very Being of the Promises is Matter of free Grace.

By Way of Reply here, I say,

1. It may be considered, that the Author, in making Use of these Expressions, was only designing to personate those of your Opinion, who maintain, that converting Grace is bestowed according to Works done by the Unregenerate, under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, in the Way of God's performing his Covenant-Engagements, made to cer­tain Seekings and Strivings of theirs. And now because the Author did not set himself to correct their several Ways of expressing their own Ideas in this Matter;—as one, That by his Endeavours he was insured of the Bestowment of effectual Grace; Another, That he was entitled, had a Claim, or Right:—A Third, That he was thereby inter­ested;—And some so bold in Expression, as to assert, That God had promised to their Endeavours, and by their Endeavours they could therefore challenge:— Because (I say) the Author did not enter into Dispute with this Sort of People, for their assuming and challenging Language, nor teach them in what Manner of Expression, Persons of that Opi­nion should address themselves to God, which did not at all belong to his Subject, but instead thereof endeavoured to convince them of the grand Error at Bottom, which was the mistaken Ground of all that Variety of bold Phrases made Use of by them; therefore he is thus very unjust, in your Judgment: But, I charitably believe, not so on this Account, in any other Person's in all the World.

2. It is observable here, that what you condemn in the Author, [Page 23] as unjust and setting Things in a ridiculous Light, is not the menio­ning only of some [...] of these Expressions, but of such a Variety, and of some as well as others; as seems evident by your adding an &c. (Page 24) Now had the Author mentioned only such Phrases as sounded most harsh, to express that Connexion between the Do­ings of the Unregenerate and the Bestowment of effectual Grace, maintained by those of your Opinion; or had you condemned only such Expressions, I had readily so far conceded. But since the Au­thor makes Use of a great Variety of Expressions, and among o­thers, of many of the lowest Sort, by which such Connexion can pos­sibly be expressed, such as—the Sinner's being by his Endeavours Insured, Assured, Intitled, Interested; nay, ‘doing that which hath a certain Connexion with, or which shall surely issue in their Conversion.’ (Ser. Pag. 16, 17, &c.) And since you condemn, in the Author, the Use of these lowest Expressions, by which any sure Connexion between the Sin­ner's Endeavours, and the Bestowment of effectual Grace, can possibly be express'd; Is not this again entirely to give up the Question? For if the Use of the lowest Expressions, by which this Connexion can be express'd, is to be condemned as very unjust and putting of Things in a ridiculous Light, it must be because there is indeed no Connexion between the Doings of the Unregenerate, and the Bestowment of effectual Grace: And if so, then no Promises made to these at all.

The Reason assign'd here with a View to make this Charge good against the Author, is, That the Matter, and indeed the very Being of the Promises, is Matter of free Grace. But what Force of Argument does this carry with it? Have not you with your own Pen confus­ed this Reason, by what you say in your 23d Page? Where, hav­ing conceded, That the Matter and Being of the Promises is of meer so­vereign free Grace, you subjoin, ‘But surely notwithstanding this, when he has been pleased to grant us these precious Promises, it must have been his Design to pass over a Right to us of the Blessings promised.’

Now,

That the Matter and Being of the Promises being Matter of meer Grace should in pag. 23. be no Reason at all, why a Right should not pass by such Promises, and yet be assigned as a good Reason (in p. 24) to censure the Author you have in Dealing, as very unjust, and ridiculing your Doctrine, while representing it as asserting a Right passed by such Promises; this must, I think, be placed among the Inconsistencies of your Letter.—So very difficult a thing is it, for any one, in the De­fence of Error, constantly to speak the same Things! And when this is the Case, it must necessarily be equally difficult for the Rea­der [Page 24] to fix upon the true Meaning of such an Author; or indeed for his Answerer to confute what is said in one Page, and not at the same Time confirm what is said in another—You close the Para­graph before us with a summary Reflection: "Considering Things in this Light [i.e. as the Matter, and indeed the very Being of the Promises, is Matter of meer Grace] then what Sense is there in your Categoric Syllogism, and all your other Reasonings on this Subject?" Where you professedly offer a View of the Promises in this Light as a sufficient Refutation of all that [...] had said on this Subject in his Sermon. But the Weight [...] Force hereof having been already considered, I refer it to every impartial Judge.—And now pass on to what I further proposed,

III. To consider what you have offer'd in Confirmation of the Af­firmative Part of the Question.

Thus the next Paragraph of your Letter begins.— But still you, "insist upon it, that there is no Promise to the Unregenerate."—Mean­ing by the Unregenerate (as in pag. 23. you express your understand­ing of the Author) these (whether baptized or not) who are under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin.

Where, having said several Things, you demand of the Author to tell you, ‘if there be no Medium between an obstinate relentless Sin­ner, and one that is throughly regenerate, in his Sense of the Word?’ And having explained what you mean by a Sinner in a middle State, between the Obstinate and the Regenerate, viz. ‘One who is brought by the Assistance of common Grace—to be serious, and really solicitous for Salvation, so as being deeply sensible of his own Guilt and Weak­ness, earnestly to cry to God for Help, and strive in earnest that he may be qualified for God's Help.—Now (say you) this is the Man to whom I say the Promises to divine efficacious [...] or special Grace do belong. This is he who hath, to whom shall be given, in our Savi­our's Sense, Math. 25. 29.’—That is, such an awakened striv­ing Sinner, though by your own Confession ‘not yet throughly con­verted from Sin to God,’ you say, is the Man who hath, in our Sa­viour's Sense, where he saith, Unto every one that hath, shall be given, and he shall have Abundance.

Here, since you confidently affirm your Opinion on the Place, though without advancing any the least Shadow of Proof, I shall take Leave to enquire into the Meaning of this Text: in Order to which, it may not be amiss to observe,

1. That the Scope and Design of the Parable of the Talents, to which this Text belongs, is evidently to shew, wherein our Rea­diness [Page 25] for Christ' s coming to Judgment must consist; and what will be the main Inquiry of the great Day, upon which the final Decision of our everlasting Fate will then turn, viz. whether we have done well, or ill, in the Account of the New Covenant? whether we've been good and faithful Servants of the Lord, or wicked and slothful, in the Management of the Talents, with which we have been in­trusted?—

This doubtless will readily be granted by every impartial atten­tive Reader, who duly considers the Occasion of this Parable, viz. The Discourse, begun by our Saviour, in the preceeding Chapter, of his Second coming to Judgment, and continued down through this: followed here first with the Parable of the Ten Virgins, evidently referring to Christ's Coming to Judgment, at the End of the World, and principally design'd to awaken Christians to the greater Watch­fulness from the Consideration of the Uncertainty of the Time. v.13. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the Day nor the Hour, wherein the Son of Man cometh.—Next follows this Parable of the Talents, ma­nifestly design'd (as has been observed) to hold forth wherein our Readiness for Christ's second Coming to Judgment will consist, viz. in our having sincerely improved the Advantages, with which we have been intrusted, and so having approv'd ourselves good and faithful Servants,in the Account of the New Covenant. And wherein this will consist, is further illustrated in a particular Instance, put for all the rest, viz. that of honouring the Lord with our Substance, in Acts of Charity to the Poor, done for Christ's Sake: contain'd in a Description of the Process of the last Judgment, continued to the End of the Chapter.—And hence,

2. By the Reckoning, here mentioned as deferred for a long Time is plainly to be understood the final Account, which we must all in that Day render to God, of our respective Improvements. This is fur­ther evident from the Reward assign'd to the Faithful, and the Doom passed on the Unfaithful. To the one is said, Enter thou into the Joy of thy Lord: but of the other,—Case the unprofitable Servant into outer Darkness, there shall be Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth. Where our Saviour insensibly slide, out of the Parable, into the Thing in­tended to be signified: and thereby gives us an infallible Key to the whole; it being plain here, that these Expressions, Outer Dark­ness, where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth, are, by a Pe­riphrases, used by our Saviour to signify the Miseries of the Damned in Hell.—Hence,

3. It follows, that by him that hath, is evidently meant one who shall then be found to have, in the Account of God, what the New [Page 26] Covenant requires, what in the Eye of that Covenant will denomi­nate him a Good and Faithful Servant, or one that has done well. This is plain, in Regard 'tis with an evident Reference to the making up of that final Account in the Day of Judgment, that he is here said to have.—And hence,

4. It is equally evident, that by the following Expression, To him shall be given, is meant the final Reward of Glory in the future World.—

Now if the Reckoning here mentioned, refers intirely to the final Account in the Day of Judgment; and if it be the Scope and De­sign of this Parable, to point out what that is, which will then stand us in Stead, in that Day of Reckoning, viz. Well-doing, in the Ac­count of the New-Covenant; And if by him that hath, be meant one that hath already exemplified that Well-doing, and is thereupon adjudg'd unto Glory; How is it possible that the seeking striving Sinner, "not yet converted throughly from Sin to God," but "still under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin," should be "the Man that hath, in our Saviour's Sense," in this Parable?—What hath such a Man? Hath he that which would stand him in stead, were he now standing at the Bar of God? Hath he what the New Covenant demands? Hath he what, in the Eye of that Covenant, will denominate him a good and faithful Servant, one that has done well, and stands intitled to eternal Glory? Can this possibly be true of one, who (according to your own Concession) is ‘under the Do­minion and Guilt of Sin,’ and consequently an Unbeliever and an Impenitent in the Gospel-Sense, unreconciled to God, and in a State of Enmity and Rebellion against God, and under a righteous Sen­tence of Condemnation? Nay, is not the Man that hath, to whom shall be given, in this Parable of the Talents, evidently represented by our Saviour as one who has pass'd the awful Trial of the Great Day, and is publickly approved, and welcomed to Glory? Well done, thou good and faithful Servant,—enter into the Joy of thy Lord. And does the seeking, striving Sinner, which you describe, answer the Character of this Man? Hath he pass'd his last Trial? Is he openly approv'd of his Lord, and welcomed to the State of the Blessed? How therefore you could, so confidently as you do, af­firm him to be this Man, in our Saviour's Sense, I must leave.

If you should excuse your Mistake, by alledging the Judgment of some great and learned Men, that have construed this Parable in Fa­vour of the Opinion you here advance; I answer, Every Error, ad­vanced in the Christian World, has its Pretence of being grounded on some Text of Scripture. Nor is this at all to be wonder'd at: for [Page 27] when once Persons have fallen into any erroneous Opinion, the Fruit of their own Imagination, and what appears to them reasonable, in their own very partial View of Things, they will easily fancy such Opinion supported by this or that Text of sacred Scripture; it mat be, by a great Variety: And sometimes (because it is impossible, in that Case, to fix upon any Text, that is full and clear to their Pur­pose) they pretend, that the Current of the whole Scripture runs that Way, from the Beginning of Genesis to the End of Revelation. Ne­vertheless, certainly this is not to come to the Scriptures as a pure Fountain, to derive our Opinions from thence; but to bring our O­pinions with us to the Scripture, and by the Help of a strong Imagi­nation, to mould the Bible by them. Now,

This I take to be evidently the Case of those who urge a Promise to the Unregenerate, from this Parable. They first, it seems, con­clude from their own View of Things, that such a Promise to the Sin­ner is highly reasonable, as may secure it in his own Power (at least morally) to be everlastingly happy: Which Conclusion being ground­ed partly on a favourable Thought of the State of the fallen Creature, especially on the State of an awakened reforming Sinner, as describ­ed above, they seem to conceive some Fitness in such a State of the Sinner, qualifying him for Help from God, and constituting him a pro­per Subject of gracious Promises. This seems to be intimated in your Notion of there being a certain "Medium between an obsstinate relentless Sinner, and one that is throughly regenerate, or intirely devoted to God," and seems to be the Ground of your insisting that the Sinner be brought to "strive in earnest, that he may be quali­fied for God's Help."—And now being fix'd in this Opinion, that there is a Meetness in this State of a Sinner to receive Help (i. e. efficaci­ous Aid, or special Grace) from God, these Gentlemen bringing this Opinion with them to the sacred Text, they read here that To every one that hath, shall be given, and thence conclude a Promise from God made to the striving Sinner, though not yet thorowly devoted to God in Jesus Christ.

But, good Sir, by whose Authority do they make this Conclusion? Does; it slow from divine Promises? Christ indeed in the Parable hath said, Unto him that hath, shall be given: But hath he any where: said, that the striving (but unconverted) Sinner is this Man that hath? Or, Is there in all this Parable one Word, or Syllable, about the striving Sinner, or of the Bestowment of converting Grace? Surely, nothing like it. No, This is the preconceived human Opinion (I spake of) which every one brings with him to the divine Text, who infers a Promise to Sinners from this Parable. And it is impossible [Page 28] to argue any Thing, for their Opinion, conclusively from the Para­ble it self.

You go on to say, "And I am under an invincible Necessity of un­derstanding MATTH. 7. 7. and 11. 28. LUKE 11. 13, &c. as belong­ing to such as be." These Promises, you hold, do belong to the Unregenerate, though under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, yet seek­ing, and striving, as aforesaid. But how do you prove this? Why first by the Necessity you find your self under thus to understand them: You plead, that you are necessitated so to understand them, and that you cannot for your Life help thus interpreting them, &c. As if you meant to carry the Argument intirely by Dint of this Plea from a felt Necessity upon you.—But since it is allowed, on all Hands, that wrong Conceptions through Prejudice, or Want of a clear Under­standing of the Case, may be the Ground of such an apprehended Necessity, as well as the Evidence of Truth, you will doubtless allow this Consideration to be absolutely set aside in the present Debate, as containing nothing conclusive or argumentative in the Case be­fore us.

You proceed, and say,—"Can any one be so absurd as to interpret these Promises thus? You that have already received the special Grace of God, Ask, and ye shall receive:— You that have already found Mercy, Seek, and ye shall find:—You to whom the Gate of Mercy is already opened and are already got within it, Knock, and it shall be opened:— You who have already get Rest, Come to me, and I will give you Rest, &c.— Is not this (say you) making perfect Nonsense of the precious Promises of God! To me it seems nothing can be more so. And yet this must be your own interpretation (say you to the Rev. Author) if you deny their being made, even to the Unregenerate:" i. e. to such of them as have been described.

The Argument used here is what is called Reductio ad Absurdum: And its whole Force lies in this That these Promises cannot be other-wise interpreted, than as belonging to the Unregenerate, while such, but by resolving their Meaning into perfect Nonsense. Now, if this can be proved, I own, the Argument must be yielded: For, to be sure, we must not make perfect Nonsense of the holy Scriptures.— But where is the Proof? You, Sir, indeed have said it; and that's all:—To refute this your Notion of the Absurdity of understanding these Promises otherwise, than as belonging to the Unregenerate, whilst such, it may suffice to observe, that it is intirely grounded on one or other, or all of the following false Hypotheses: viz.

1. That these conditional Promises were not spoken, or meant to Believers, but to others exclusive of them.

[Page 29]2. That the Matter of Petition and Inquiry here, or what is here enjoined to be asked and sought, is limited to the first Grace of sav­ing Conversion, and extends not to After-Grace, in progressive Sancti­fication.

3. That the asking, seeking, knocking, and coming to Christ, unto which the Promise is here annexed, are to be conceived as Doings that are short of that Faith, which implies a thorow Conversion to God in Christ.

These, I think, must be the Suppositions, on which your Notion of the Absurdity of our Interpretation is intirely grounded; Which being fairly examined, and removed by the Force of Truth, these Promises may be interpreted as we understand them, without any the least Shadow of Absurdity, and be sure, without any Danger of their being made perfect Nonsense. And now,

1. That these Things are here supposed, and made the intire Ground of that Absurdity, pretended to be in understanding those Promises otherwise than as belonging to the Unregenerate, whilst such, is evi­dent from this Consideration, That the removing of these Suppositions is the removing of all Appearances of Absurdity, and leaves not any the least Shadow of it in the Case. For if these Promises are spoken and meant to Believers, and the Matter of the Petition here enjoin­ed, is not limited to the first Grace of Conversion, exclusive of After-Grace in Order to progressive Sanctification, where is the Absurdity you speak of, even according to your own Reading of the Text? "You that have already received the special Grace of God, that are true Believers, Heirs of the Promises, that have Grace and Glory and very good Thing laid up in them, Ask; and ye shall receive;— you who have already found Mercy, Seek and ye shall find, i. e. further Mercy, or more Grace. Is it absurd, that he which hath Life, should have it more abundantly? Is it at all absurd, that the Believer, who has received the first Grace, should he enjoined to ask, seek, and knock at the Door of Mercy, for further Supplies? Or, is it absurd, that he should be promised Success in so doing? So, if the Asking, to which the Promise is here annexed, be asking in Faith, where is the Absurdity of understanding these Promises otherwise than as be­longing to the Unregenerate, continuing such? Nay, how is it possible that they should belong to them at all, while continuing in their Unbelief and not through Christ having Access by the Spirit unto the Fa­ther?— Thus it is fully evident, here, that the whole Pretence of Absurdity, in understanding these Promises otherwise than as belong­ing to the Unregenerate, depends intirely on the Truth of this, and the other Suppositions; Which if found not true the Objection you [Page 30] make, vanishes intirely. So that what remains for me to do here, is,

2. To evince the utter Falseness of each of these Suppositions.— And,

1. The Supposition, that these Promises were not spoken and meant to Believers, but to others exclusive of them, is evidently a Mistake. For it is certain, that Christ's Disciples were present at the preaching of this Sermon on the Mount, Chap. 5. 1. And likewise that what is said by our Saviour in Luk. 11. 13. was said directly to his Disciples, on their Request that he would teach them to pray, v. 1. Certain it is therefore, that these Promises were spoken and meant to Believers, and not to others exclusive of them; unless it be sup­posed here, that Christs Disciples were not Believers; what no one, I presume, will pretend. Nay, which is more, to make good this Supposition, it must be proved, that there was not one of the whole Company present a Believer.

2. The Supposition, that the Matter of the Petition and Inqui­ry here, or what is here enjoined to be asked and sought, is limited to the first Grace of Conversion, exclusive of consequent Grace in progressive Sanctification, is also evidently false. For since these Du­ties were enjoined upon the Disciples themselves, with Promises of Success, and not on others exclusive of them, it must therefore be impossible, that the Matter of Petition and Inquiry enjoined them should be limited to the first Grace, because this they had already re­ceived; and therefore to enjoin them to ask and seek that, would be an Inconsistency and Absurdity indeed.—The Supposition,

3. That the asking, seeking, &c. to which Success is here promised, are Doings s [...]ort of that Faith, which implies an intire Devotedness to God in Christ, is also evidently false. For, if the asking and seek­ing, &c. to which the Promise here is annex'd, be any Doings short of unfeigned Faith, then we are to understand our Saviour here to en­join these Duties without regarding their necessary Principle, which is Faith. The Injunction ought in Reason to be interpreted in the same Latitude as the Promise that is annexed. And can it once be imagined, that our blessed Saviour would enjoin his Disciples to ask, seek, and knock by Prayer, without Faith unfeigned? Would not this be to teach them to approach unto God otherwise than through a Mediator; contrary to the grand Design of the Gospel? Which is stiled Rom. 16. 26. The Revelation of the Mystery made known to all Nations for the Obedience of Faith. Would it not to be to enjoin what could by no Means be pleasing or acceptable to God? Since (Heb. 11. 6.) Without Faith it is impossible to please God. Do not the Scriptures [Page 31] enjoin us (Col. 3. 17) to do all In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ? And can this be done without Faith? Yea, do not the Scriptures require the Exercise of Faith, in every Instance, to accompany Pray­er? Seeing they declare it the Will of God (1 Tim. 2. 8.) That Men pray every where, lifting up holy Hands, without Wrath and Doubting. And can Prayer be performed with holy Hands lifted up, where that Faith is wanting, which purifieth the Heart and Hands? But certainly, it cannot be done without Doubting. Does not the Apostle James ex­presly caution all against this Mistake, of placing Dependance on the Success of Prayer destitute of Faith? Jam. 1. 5, 6, 7. If any Man lack Wisdom, let him ask of Gods, that giveth to all Men liberally, and up­bradeth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in Faith, nothing wavering: for he that wavereth, is like a Wave of the Sea, driven with Wind, and tossed. For let not that Man think that he shall receive any Thing of the Lord. q. d. Taking into Consideration the Extent of the New-Covenant, the whole Design of God's Mercy to fallen Mankind through a Mediator, and the unbounded Goodness of God's Nature, whereby, in this New-Covenant-Way, he deals out to all Men most liberally, without upbraiding any; yet nevertheless, upon the largest View of these Things, let no Man fall into this Mistake, that a faithless Prayer will take hold of God, or obtain any Mercy at all, at his Hand.—From all which, and much more that might be offered, were it needful, it is incontestibly evident, that the last of these Suppositions, as well as the two former, is intirely a Mistake.

Nor is it less evident, that the Coming to Christ, to which a Promise of Rest stands annexed (Matth. 11 28.) is plainly meant of comings by Faith; and it were easy to shew, it is generally so; understood by Divines, of every Denomination. But if an Appeal be had here from the Authority of Men to the Authority of God, and according to that most excellent Rule of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, you are disposed to rest satisfied in a Decision of this Matter, by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, we then have it in John 6. 35. I am the Bread of Life: be that cometh to me, shall never hun­ger; and be that believeth on me, shall never thirst. Where it is ex­ceeding obvious, that coming to Christ, as the Bread of Life, and be­lieving on him, are used as Terms of the same Import, and equal Sig­nificancy: the same spiritual and everlastingly satisfying Blessings being promised to each.

Now, upon the whole, If it be certain, that the Intire Reason you have assign'd, why these Promises should be understood, as belong­ing to the Unregenerate, whilst such, is the Absurdity of understanding them otherwise; which indeed you say cannot be done without [Page 32] making perfect Nonsense of them;—and if it be also certain, that this Notion of the Absurdity of understanding them otherwise, be grounded wholly on certain Suppositions; Which Suppositions, no less certainly are meer Mistakes, and utterly ungrounded: Then it must, I think, undeniably follow, that the whole Reason you have assign'd why these Promises should be understood as belonging to the Unregenerate, whilst such, is intirely removed and vacated.

Having thus rescued these Texts from that unnatural Force put upon them, by means of false Suppositions, and restored their true and genuine Meaning; all that are honestly minded, and have no preconceiv'd Scheme of their own to serve by wresting the Scriptures, will (I doubt not) be able to read these Promises as made immedi­ately to the Children of God, to excite them to be much and ear­nest in the great Duty of Prayer, from the Consideration of the Certainty of Success to attend the Prayer of Faith; the effectual ser­vent Prayer of a righteous Man availing much. Though they are im­provable also as an Excitement and Encouragement to all others, to be concern'd that they may be brought likewise to ask, seek, knock, and come by Faith to the Mercy of God through the Mediator, as the only certain Means of Success. taught us in the Scriptures of Truth, by Divine Promises made thereto.

Having, as you supposed, established the Sense of these Texts in your own Favour; you, in the next Place, thus proceed. "For God's sake, Dear Sir, let us take Care that we do not, from a violent Attach­ment, to any preconceived humane Schemes, pervert the plainest and most obvious Declarations, and Promises of the Gospel. To me it is manifest, that this is what those on your Side really do; and that your whole System, where it is peculiar, is not founded on the holy Scriptures (taken in the whole, and critically read and considered) but on the empty Cob-webs of Scholastical Metaphysics (vain Philosophy, Science falsly so called): together with some few obscure Texts, not rightly understood, for want of a critical Skill in the ancient Languages, and the Notions and Contro­versies of those Times, and for want of an exact Attention to the Scope and Argument of the sacred Writers; In Consequence of which you ma­nifestly torture the plainest Texts, to make them speak your Sense, and so corrupt the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel, and in Effect make it a meer unintelligible Riddle."

Here, Sir, being struck with the utmost Surprize, I must beg leave to pause a while, as not able suddenly to resolve what is best to say! — Is this the Charity!—This the following after Peace and Holiness! — which you seem so earnestly to pray for, in your next Page.—Is this the melting of your Bowels, for them, over whom [Page 33] (Pag. 22.) you profess to grieve, and for whom (Pag. I) you ex­press your Charity, as Serious Christians, that are not at all sensible of their Mistake! Was it possible Sir, that you should conceive any the least Tendency, in these astonishing Lines of yours, to win upon their Affections, or to set before them any Matter of Conviction;— unless it were of the present Temper of their quondam Friend to­wards them?

Could you once imagine, Sir, that the Loudness of your Cry a­gainst others, as being violently attached to human Schemes, perverting the plainest Texts, building en empty Cobwebs &c. would secure you from the same Imputations; or prevent your being; in the Sequel, found in the Number of those, against whom you make such a hi­deous Outery? The dark Character, you have here drawn, may perhaps in the Substance of it really agree to one or other of these contending Parties: But then what Right have you, 'good Sir, to fit Judge, in your own Cause? Which, to make sure Work, you have done: and no wonder at all; that you have carried the Case in your own Favour.—However, the Right of Appeal is challenged; and the Matter chearfully submitted to the Judgment of impartial Readers, whether you have gained your Point, or not; i. e. Whe­ther the Scriptures you have alledged, with your Reasons enforcing them, compared with what has now been replied, do clearly and fully prove the Affirmative Part of the Question before us; I say, clearly and fully,—for such ought to be the Proof in this important Case; since the Opinion you've advanced, affects the very Constitu­tion of the New-Covenant, and adds to it an essential Branch, that we know nothing of.

The Covenant of Grace we acknowledge; the Tenor whereof is plainly this, He that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting Life, and shall never perish. According to this, God is a Covenant-God and Father to Believers. But a Covenant-Obligation, whereby God is bound to give his special efficacious Grace, and so his Spirit, and his Christ, to the Unregenerate, by Virtue of his own Promise, made to any Do­ings, Seekings, Strivings of theirs, short of that Faith, by which the Just do live, is what we don't know any Thing of, neither do the Scriptures of Truth, nor indeed any publick Confession of Faith in the Protestant World, that we are acquainted with, nor even the Arti­cles and Homilies of your own Church of England. And therefore until this Point, which you so contend for, be settled, by clear and full Evidence from Divine Testimony, we must not, we dare not, ad­mit of it, left we be found guilty of adding to the Word of God.

But what is most of all surprizing here, is, that you should not only [Page 34] so peremptorily decide the Case in your own Favour, but that you should in so confident a Manner accuse and condemn all on the other Side, as "perverting the plainest Declarations of the Gospel,—founding their whole System, so far as it is peculiar (which at least must in your Sense, take in this of denying Promises of special Grace to any Do­ings of the Unregenerate) on the empty Cobwebs of scholastical Meta­physicks, vain Philosophy, Science falsly so called,—Scripture are rightly understood, for Want of critical Skill in the antient Languages, and exact Attention to the Scope and Argument of the sacred Writers; in Conse­quence of which (say you to die Rev. Author and those of his Mind) you manifestly torture the plainest Texts to make them speak your Sense, and corrupt the Simplicity of the Gospel, and make it in Effects a meer unin­telligible Riddle."

Now, Sir, I pray tell me, was this truly the Case with all those famous Bishops, Doctors, and Clergy of the Church of England, who have given their Suffrages full in Favour of the Negative Side of the Question? Or was this indeed the Case with the whole Body of the Clergy of the Church of Scotland, from the first Dawn of the Reformation? And was this the Case with all those other eminent Divines at home and abroad, living and dead, that might be mention­ed, as favouring the Negative in the present Question? In sober Earnest, tell me, Sir, Do all these pervert the most obvious Promises of the Gospel, from a violent Attachment to human Schemes? Do all these godly, learned Men torture the plainest Texts, to make them speak their Sense? Do they all, in this Point at least, build upon the empty Cobwebs of Scholastick Metaphysicks, and vain Philosophy? Have none of them ever been Masters of a sufficiect critical Skill in the ancient Languages? &c. &c.

I might here confront vour Opinion with the contrary Judgment of many of the greatest Writers in your own Church: from whom I might easily collect enough to fill up a considerable Volume, But I shall at present give you only a Quotation from that renowned Prelate, pious and learned Bishop Hopkins, on the Covenant (P. 152) where having said several Things on this Head, he sums up the Matter thus. ‘In brief, the absolute Covenant promiseth the first Grace of Conversion to God; the Conditional promiseth Life, if we be converted. The Conditional promiseth Life, if we believe: The Absolute promiseth Faith, whereby we may believe to the saving of our Souls; and there­fore it is called an absolute Covenant, because the first Grace of Con­version to God cannot be given upon Conditions.—It is indeed com­monly wrought in Men by the right Use of Means, as hearing the Word, Meditation, Prayer, &c but these Means are not Con­ditions [Page 35] of Grace, because we have found that in some Instanecs God hath not limited himself to them.—And indeed, what is there that can in Reason be supposed a Condition of God's bestow­ing the Gift of the first Grace upon us? Either it must be some Act of Grace, or of meer Nature. Not of Grace, for then the first Grace would be already given: Not of Nature, for then Grace would be given according to Works, which is the Sum and Upshot of PELAGIANISM.’

Now, Sir, for my own Part, though I am far from concluding, that every one, who is in this Error, is a Pelagian: Because this may be the Case with some, who have, ere they were aware, been induced, by what they have head plausibly said on this Point, to entertain a favourable Thought of it: Yet I am fully persuaded, that this learn­ed BISHOP throughly understood what be here says, and that when ever Truth in this Point is searched to the Bottom, the Affirmative Part of ike Question will be found the pernicious Fruit of Error, growing on the Pelagian Root of denying the Doctrine of Original Sin, as held forth in our publick Confessions of Faith, and in the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England:—And that, reserving Credit to the Doc­trine of Original Sin, it will be found a much harder Task to recon­cile with the Divine Attributes this unaccountable Notion of a Grant in the Gospel, of New Covenant-Blessings, on Condition of Old Cove­nant-Works, i. e. certain Doings of the Unregenerate, whilst such, than to reconcile with the Divine Attributes, the Notion of God's permiting fallen Mankind to come into the World in such a corrupt and sinful State, as not to have it secured in all Respects in their Power (as well Morally, i. e. notwithstanding any inherent Vicious­ness or Depravity, as naturally) to be everlastingly happy. And here, Sir, by the Way, since you have been ready to impute it to Prejudice, when any among your Dissenting Brethren(as you call them) have doubted of your Orthodoxy in the grand Point of Original Sin, I would observe that you have now (on what is recited above) an advantage of considering the Matter more free from Prejudice; since it is not the doubtful Tho't, but firm persuasion of one of your own Bishops, that the Error, which you plead for is the very Sum and Up­shot of Pelagianism.

What now remains of your Letter, is chiefly a repeating and urging of that invincible Necessity, which you say you are under, of under­standing these Promises as belonging to the unregenerate, i. e. whilst such. "I cannot for my Life (say you) help interpreting these, and the like Promises in this plain, easy and obvious Manner: You that have not yet received the Grace of God, for the thorow Renovation of your [Page 36] Souls, Ask and ye shall receive" Again you say,—Thus I am neces­sitated,—and—Thus I am obliged—" Which concludes the Argumen­tative Part of your Letter, Pag. 26, 27.

Here I shall only appeal to the impartial Reader, Whether it be not abundantly evident, from what has been argued and remark'd a­bove, that no such invincible Necessi [...], or Obligation, as you plead, ariseth from any thing either expressed or implied in those sacred Texts. To me it is evident, that whenever this Matter is thorow­ly examin'd, it will be found, that the Necessitation or Obligation up­on you, results not in the least from the genuine Sense or true Force of these Scriptures, as unavoidably to be interpreted, as including this Point of Doctrine, which you plead to be held forth in them; but I doubt, you find and feel, in the present Debate, a pressing Neces­sity upon you, in Order to support your Scheme, a Necessity (I say) of alledging some plausible Texts from the Book of God, to countenance your Notion of God's being obliged to the Bestowment of converting Grace, by virtue of his own Promise made to the Doings of the Unregenerate, whilst continuing such.

There being an inseparable Connection between the Opinion of God's being obliged, by Covenant, as above, and what you seem to make a grand Foundation-Principle in your Scheme, (pag. 6.) "That it is inconsistent with the Attributes of God to give Being to any of his In­telligent Creatures (the Corruption of the Fall notwithstanding) without putting them into a Condition, that (every Thing being considered, in the whole of their Nature and Duration) would render Being desirable to them;" No Wonder then, that you are so earnestly intent upon finding out some Texts of Scripture interpretable in Favour of your Opinion a­bout a Promise to the Unregenerate.

For if, as you say, it be thus inconsistent with the Attributes of God, to give Being to any of the Offspring of fallen Adam, without put­ting them into this desirable State of Being, above described, then it must be also inconsistent with God's Attributes, to give them any Being at all, without securing it in their Power, in all Respects (as well Morally, as Naturally) to be, in some Degree at least, finally happy: un­less you should suppose, that that State of Being is desirable, that is destitute of sufficient Power to be in any Degree finally happy; which doubtless you will be far from allowing.—And since you readily ac­knowledge (pag. 24.) that "the Sinner cannot, of himself, [even under all the external Advantages of the Gospel] truly repent and turn to God, without his Help; i. e. Divine efficacious Aid, or special Grace; and so consequently without this, has not sufficient Power to be in any Degree finally happy; Is it not a clear Case, that unless you can [Page 37] weld this Link of your Theological Chain, and fasten it into the o­ther, by proving from the Word of God, that He has actually pro­mised Special Grace, or (as you call it) Efficacious Aid, to the Unrege­nerate, on Condition of some Doings of theirs, whilst such, your Chain must fail you, and so your Superstructure and Foundation must necessarily sink together!

Hence, No Wonder, you have bestir'd your self so vigorously, in such a Season, when the Power of Sovereign Grace hath been dis­play'd, in a Manner that is truly admirable, for Conviction, unto great Numbers in one Place and another, of this great Gospel-Truth, by happy Experience of a Work of Grace (hopefully) wrought in their Hearts; and especially since, by long Observation and Experience it is found, that according as the Work of God's Grace in the saving Conversion of Sinners sensibly goes on among a People, this Error, or mistaken Opinion of God's being by Covenant obliged to dispense his special renewing Grace, on the Doings of Ubregenerate Sinners, whilst such, sensibly goes down among them.—So that the Scheme you defend, has not only been in imminent Danger, in the late remark­able Season of Grace; but has really fallen in the Hearts of very many, who, being (hopefully) turned from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan u [...] God, have of their own Accord confessed their full Conviction in this Point, and frequently bemoaned their past Ig­norance in such Language as this,—Once we thought, God bestowed re­newing Grace on Sinners, as having promised it to their Endeavours; but now we know, it is otherwise, and are convinc'd by our own Experience, agreable to the Scriptures, that when ever God converts and saves any, it is merely, because so it seemeth good in his Sight! O(say they) how spiritually blind we were! for alas, what can there be in the Doings of a wretched, sinful, all over polluted, guilty Creature, out of Christ, that an infinitely holy God should oblige himself to!—It was therefore, Sir, but reasonable to expect (considering the View which you have of Things) that you should on this Occasion bring forth your strong Reasons; and produce the whole Strength of Argument, that could be gathered, from all that hath been said on your Side of the Question, or that the Case would possibly admit in Defence of this Principle of yours. Accord­ingly it is observable, that the Run of your Letter is correspondent with what others have said before you: and the Scriptures you quote, the same that have chiefly been insisted on by them; though to me indeed in the same groundless Manner, and very far short of bring­ing out a Conclusion in your Favour. But relying on the Reasons already assigned, which I submit to the Impartial, I will dismiss the present Head, when I have only made one further Remark.— [Page 38] How it is possible, that any Reasonable Creature should, upon a due and deliberate Meditation on those Scriptures, be able (from the pure Force of what is therein express'd or imply'd) to appeal to Om­niscience, and say, LORD, according to my best Understanding, There clearly read thy gracious Promise, of the Bestowment of effectual con­verting Grace, made in certain Doings of the Unregenerate whilst such—This, I must confess, is quite beyond all the Power of Discerning. I am conscious of in my self.

Thus I have done with the third Thing proposed, and now pro­ceed to the next and last.

IV. To suggest and urge some Considerations in Favour of the Negative Side of the Question before us; which will lead me to illus­trate and confirm the main Arguments advanc'd by Mr. Cooke in his Sermon.

Though the Negative necessarily stands Good, 'till the Affirmation be proved ; and (if true) needs no other Vindication, than this, v [...]. It does not appear, or 'tis not evident, from Divine Revelation, that God is by Covenant obliged, as you hold; Yet, since it mayn't be with out its Use, I shall touch on some of the many Considerations, this offer themselves in Confirmation of the contrary, hold by us. [...]And here,

It appears to me reasonable, and just, to allow The first Place [...] the Rev. Mr. Cooke's Arguments (which you have not formally c [...] ­sidered) as they lie in his Sermon; where, under the Applicati [...] having first infer'd, "That it is a great Mistake, and of danger [...] Consequence, which many carnal Persons under the Gospel fall in [...] who will persuade themselves, that by their own Doings (though t [...] cannot properly merit, yet) they are insured of spiritual and sav [...]g Mercies, by Virtue of Promises, which God hath made to them in [...] Word?" This the Rev. Author proceeds to enforce and illustra [...] by sundry Arguments. (Vid, Serm. Pag. 16. to 22.) He argues

1. That this Mistake in the Sinner must be dangerous, as it c [...] ­tains nothing less in it, than his sticking fast to the first Caven [...] the Covenant of Works: and that since, by that Covenant, Life [...] secured to Man's own Doings, not as strictly meritorious, but ‘me [...] by Virtue of God's Covenant-Promise, therefore for a poor Si [...] to persuade himself, upon what he has done, or can do, that hath a good Cain to converting and saving Mercies, by W [...] of the Promises, is nothing more or less than to stand, to this [...] ­ment, on the Foot of a Covenant of Works, as really, in the E [...] ­tials of it, as ever Man in the Beginning did: And the unha [...] [Page 39] Creature is all this while going about to establish a Righteousness of his own, for the general Kind the same with That, required in the first Covenant.’—The Author argues against that mistaken Perswasion,

2. That it leaves Room for Boasting: And this, he justly observes, "is quite inconsistent with and contrary to the whole Tenor and main Design of the Gospel, which is perfectly to exclude all Boast­ing in and of our selves, and to lay the Crown of our Salvation on the Head of rich, free, and sovereign Grace through Christ Jesus."

Omitting at present the three other subservient Considerations, mentioned by the Author in his Sermon, I shall confine my Thoughts to the two above-recited: And considering these in one complex View, as they are of such near Affinity, and so closely connected, I shall vindicate them both together, for Brevity's Sake.

Now, to open the Way to this Defence, allow me to make a few preliminary Observations. And I say in general, If it can be made evident, that to hold certain Seekings, Strivings, or Doings whatso­ever of the Unregenerate, whilst such, conditional of the Bestowment of special converting Grace, or that to which the Promise of such Grace is made, be to countenance the fallen Creature's going about to establish his own Righteousness, and to allow of that Boasting, to which the Gospel every where expresly denies any Place in the Affair of bringing us unto God; it will then doubtless be acknowledged, upon such Evidence, that the Arguments above are solid and conclusive.— And the Truth of the foregoing Proposition, may, I think, be evinc­ed by the following Considerations.

1. That to suppose special converting Grace ensured or secured to the Unregenerate, by a Promise thereof made to any Doings of theirs, whilst under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, and establishing a Con­nection between such his Grace, and such their Doings, is to suppose God's acting properly as a moral Governor in this Affair, and making the Sinner's Works the Rule of his Dispensations, even in point of Regenerating Grace, or effectual Calling.—And again,

2. This supposes some acceptable Degree of moral Goodness, in­trinsick Worth, or true Excellency, in these Doings of the Unregene­rate; something in them of vital and true Holiness, in God's Ac­count: and implies that his Method of saving us is by Works of Righ­teousness, which we have done, and not meerly according to his Mercy, or sovereign Grace.—Because if there were not some acceptable Measure of moral Rectitude and true Goodness, or nothing that is truly vital, spiritual and holy, in such their Doings, it seems not reconcila­ble with the moral Perfections of God, and therefore impossible in [Page 40] the Nature of Things, that he should establish a Rule, respecting these Doings of theirs as the Condition of his Promise, according to which, as a moral Governor, he conducts himself in the Dispensation of his first special Grace to Sinners.—And now,

3. To assert, that there is any the least true Vitality, Spirituality, or moral Rectitude before God, in the best Doings of the Unregenerate, even of Sinners in your middle Condition, i. e. "Such as are really solicitous for Salvation, but not yet throughly converted from Sin to God," and accordingly to conside in and plead any such Doings as intitling (though by virtue of the Promises only) to special Grace,—this it self is that very Boasting, which by the whole Tenor of the Christian Revelation is excluded out of the Business of our seek­ing to be justify'd by Christ, and coming to God by him for Salvation.— And hence it inevitably follows,

4. That to teach for Doctrine, that any the best Endeavours and highest Improvements of Sinners Unregenerate, or in your Sense of the Word, such as are "not yet intirely devoted to God" are the reveal'd federal Condition of promised converting Grace, is in true Construc­tion nothing less than to introduce into the Scheme of Salvation that very Boasting, which the Gospel most expresly shuts out, and to pa­tronise that going about to establish our own Righteousness, which is inconsistent with a due Submission to the Righteousness that is of God by Faith.—This Conclusion will necessarily arise out of the Premi­ses; which, as I apprehend, admit of the easiest and most copious Proofs, from Revelation and Reason.

As to the Thing supposed in the first Proposition, it appears to me one; of the leading Principles in the Arminian Scheme, and is agreable (Sir) to your profess'd Opinion, That God dispenses his special Grace, or in your Sense of the Words, his efficacious Aid, not as an absolute Proprietor and sovereign Benefactor, but as a moral Go­vernor, and righteous Judge of the Behaviour and Improvements of his Creatures.

And as to the second Proposition, this is strictly demonstrable from the first; since to suppose the Behaviour and Improvements of the Creature to be the Rule, which God respects, as a moral Gover­nor and righteous Judge, in the Dispensation of his special efficacious Grace, and yet at the same time to suppose the said Behaviour and Im­provements quite devoid of all true moral Goodness or vital Holiness in the sight of God, would be nothing less than to make two incompa­tible Suppositions, and to run yourself into a flat Contradiction.

So that the only Article in the Premises, that demands Proof, in [Page 41] Order to bring out the Conclusion, and establish the Argument in hand, is the third,—as above. And this again is too evident, to need any elaborate Confirmation of it. For the Sinner's conceiving so highly of his own Doings, or any possible Strivings, Seekings, or Comings to Christ, which he is capable of in his unregenerate Condition, and while (according to you) not yet thoroughly converted, as to imagine some true Virtue, some proper Righteousness, or moral Rectitude in such his Performances and Endeavours, and accordingly to imagine a Right to the Blessing of special Grace, or Divine efficacious Aid, pass'd over to him by Means of these his Doings and Attempt though only as Compliances with the Divine conditional Promise, in which God is supposed to have made a sure connetion between renewing Grace and such Endeavours; This, if I know any thing of Gospel-Humility, is not to think soberly, but to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, as the Case appears to me. Here is spiritual Pride, founded on vain Imaginations. Here are Falsehoods set up for Truths, and improv'd to Self-Righteousness, and to such Self-Boast­ing, as hath much of moral Evil in it. And methinks, none should doubt whether the Gospel-Scheme of Salvation excludes this, when it is so expresly declared that Boasting (all sinful Boasting) is excluded by the Law of Faith.

The only Point here, requiring Proof, I think is this, That the Supposition of any true moral Excellency and solid Goodness in the best possible Doings of the Unregenerate, whilst such, is but a meer Dream and vain Imagination.

And though this appears to me incontestibly evident, b [...] from Scripture and Reason, yet because I would not anticipate [...]at will more properly be offer'd in another Place hereafter, I shall [...]t pre­sent only suggest and argue a little with you upon the Impossibility, in the Nature of Things, that this Supposition should be true. For, since the sole original Standard, by which the moral Goodness or Rectitude of the Creatures Actions can be meaesur'd and deter­mined, is the moral Perfections of God, and since Sin is the pre­dominant Principle in the unrenewed. Man, from whence all his Actions must take their principal Denomination and have their Specification, how is it possible for the best Doings of such a Man, while under the Dominion of Sin, to harmonise in any Degree with the moral Nature of God, so as to be approvable in his Sight? It's impossible then, that the Supposition before us should have any Foundation in Truth.—And I argue upon this; If he best Doings of the Unregenerate have no proper moral Goodness in them, they then have no moral Fitness to be the Condition in a Divine Promise [Page 42] of special Grace; and consequently to plead such a morally unfit Condition though perform'd to the highest Degree that an unrege­nerate State will admit of, as intitling the Doer (in Virtue of a pre­tended Promise) to saving Grace, is to rejoice in a Thing of Nought, and to bring in that vain Boasting, which the Gospel-Scheme intirely shuts out. To suppose therefore any Works of the Unregenerate, in God's Promise, cloathed with such a Conditionality, as hath this ex­cluded Boasting inseparably connected with it, is nothing less than to pervert the Gospel of Christ, and thwart its true Design, in this Par­ticular.

It appears to me a clear Scripture-Truth, that with a View to the Exclusion of Boasting, all Works of the Unregenerate are, in the Scheme of the Gospel excluded from being conditional of the Bestowment of special Grace.—And this Truth, I think, is demonstrable from many plain Texts in sacred Writ. To instance in a few. We read, Tit. 3. 5. Not by Works of Righteousness, which we have done, but according to his Mercy, be saved us. 2. Tim. 1. 9. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy Calling, not according to our Works, but according to his own Purpose and Grace.—The Apostle speaks not of a meer Salvability, but at actual Salvation; asserts a then-existing State; and points out the Method of Introduction into it, both negatively and positively.—Hath saved us. i. e. not only given us the external Means of Salvation, and brought us into his visible Kingdom, but into a justify'd and renew'd State; the Apostle speaking this knowingly for himself, and charitably for others: nor can any reasonable Doubt a­rise here of his using the Word [saved] in this Sense. And as to the Method of bringing them into this saved State, he peremptorily determines it to be, in its negative View, not by Works of Righteous­ness which they had done; not according to Works, any at all whatsoever, previous to and conditional of the Bestowment of saving Grace. He does not meerly say, not for Works, but not by or through them, yea, even not according to them, i, e. not with any Reference to them, as a Condition. But, in a positive View of the Case, 'twas intirely ac­cording to God's Mercy, according to his own Purpose and Grace. His own Mercy was all his Motive to saving them: and his own Purpose his only Rule in Dispensing his Grace.—Again, we read, 1 Cor. 4. 7. Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou, that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory [or boast] as though thou hadst not received it?—So Rom. 4. 2, &c. If Abraham were justified by Works, be hath whereof to glory; but not be­fore God.—To him that worketh, is the Reward not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt.—To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him who justifieth [Page 43] the Ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righteousness.—Unto them God im­puteth Righteousness without Works.—Again, Rom. 3. 27. Where is Boasting then? It is excluded. By what Law? Of works! Nay, but by the Law of Faith. And Chap. 11. 6. If by Grace, then it is no more of Works; otherwise Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of Works, then is it no more Grace: otherwise Work is no more Work. Again, Eph. 2. 9. Not of Works, left any Man should boast.—And once more 1 Cor. 1. 29. That no Flesh should glory in his Presence.

It appears to me exceeding evident from these and other parallel Texts, that with a View to the Exclusion of all Glorying or Boasting in and of ourselves, the Works of the Unregenerate must be under­stood, as consider'd under some certain Notion, Relation, or Quality, to be excluded from the Business of their Recovery out of a perishing State of Nature into a State of Salvation, i. e. a justify'd and sanctfi­fy'd State. For, Boasting is said to be excluded, Not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Faith. However, do we make void the Law through Faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. Certain­ly therefore Works are not excluded as to their general Being, or in Respect of our moral Obligation to them; but the Law strictly requires them of every Man. And hence it is a clear Consequence, that since the Law is not made void through Faith, therefore the Exclusion of Works by the Gospel must be taken in some qualified and limited Sense, and must respect these Works as consider'd under some certain special Notion, Relation, or imagin'd Quality.—And what can these be? I answer, They are all possible mistaken Notions, Relations or supposed Qualities, under which those Works being considered, they do contain Grounds of Boasting. This is evident from the Scrip­ture's saying, Not of Works, last any Man should boast: which shews, that were it of Works, it would threaten this Consequence, and there­fore that the View in excluding Works is for the sake of excluding Boasting. But more particularly, the Works of the Unregenerate are excluded with this View, when consider'd under the Notion (1.)Of their containing in them a proper Efficiency or Power to renew and purify their Hearts, cure their moral Disorders, and recover them to Happiness, in Concurrence with the external Advantages of the Gospel.—Or (2.) Of their carrying strict and proper Merit in them, to intitle them to Divine special Grace.—Or (3) Of their having in them something of Moral Goodness or true Rectitude in God's Account, to recommend them to his Acceptance, and us to his Favour.—Or (4.) Of their being an appointed Condition in the Gospel-Covenant, and having the Promise of special Grace made to them.—These are some of the mistaken Notions or Respects, under which the unrege­nerate [Page 44] striving Sinner may be apt to conceive too highly of his Works; and we may justly suppose, his best Works are, under all such Con­siderations of them, excluded by the Law of Faith, for the Sake of ex­cluding Boasting. These imply so many vain Efforts of the fallen Creature in going about to establish his own Righteousness, and to restore himself to Happiness, by Virtue of his own Sufficiency, without sub­mitting himself to the Righteousness of God, or being dependant on his sovereign Grace for Salvation.

Now, though it were no difficult Task, to prove, that Works, as consider'd under all the above-mentioned Respects, are by the Gos­pel-Scheme of Salvation excluded, for the sake of excluding Boasting; yet because 'tis the last only I am here concerned with, I shall wholly pass the others; save only so far as either of them may serve for a Me­dium, applicable to my purpose, in the present Debate.—Two Things are proper to be attempted, for clearing the Point now before us.

(1.) That the Works of the Unregenerate are in the Scheme of Man's Salvation excluded, for the sake of excluding Boasting.—And

(2.) Their being excluded with this View, argues that they must of Necessity be denied the Place of Conditions in any Divine Promise of special Grace.

[I.] I am to shew, that the Works if the Unregenerate, while such, even all their best Duties, Endeavours, and Improvements whatsoever, sup­posed by themselves or others to have some true Goodness and moral Excel­lency, whereby they might be acceptable to God, are as considered under that Notion, excluded from the Business of a Sinner's being brought into a saved State, for the sake of excluding Boasting.

The Truth of this may be evine'd from sundry Considerations, As,

1. From Scripture-Representations of the End design'd in the Ex­clusion of Works, viz. that Boasting may be excluded.—By the Texts before cited, it appears, that Works are excluded for the sake of ex­cluding Boasting: and if so, it must be concluded, the Design is to exclude them under every Notion, which contains the Grounds, of or leaves Room for Boasting. By Consequence, it must be the Inten­tion of the Holy Ghost to exclude them under the Notion of their being morally good, in the sight of God; since Works, consider'd in this View, do contain evident Grounds of Boasting, or at least evi­dently leave Room for it; Moral Rectitude being the very Image of God, which was the primitive Glory of Man, and the highest Excellency that can be attributed to any Doings of the Creature.—It were absurd, to assert that the Scripture should exclude Works for the sake of excluding Boasting, and yet at the same time to suppose [Page 45] it allows them to have any true Moral Goodness in them; since in this Case the design would be frustated, and Boasting would by no means be excluded, though Works were under every ether Notion, but this excluded. Accordingly we find, that the Holy Ghost by the Pen of the Apostle, in all that he says on this Subject in the places above cited, shews it plainly to be his Design and Drift, to exclude Works, as consider'd under this mistaken Notion of their having in them Moral Goodness, or true Holiness, in the sight of God. Thus when the Apostle uses such Expressions as these, By Grace ye are sav­ed,—not of Works;—Not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, &c. his Meaning can't be, to deny that he or others then in a re­new'd State had before their Conversion done any Works whatsoe­ver, that were materially good, such as praying and the like com­manded Duties; but to disclaim the formal Goodness of them, and deny them to have true Morality in God's Account, or any such Con­formity to his righteous Law, as makes them pleasing to Him; which the Pride and Ignorance of the fallen Creature flutter him with vain Imaginations of.—All Works therefore of the Unregenerate, as con­sider'd under this Notion of being morally good, must by the Gospel be utterly excluded, in Order that hereby all Grounds of Boasting might be remov'd, and no Place left for it in the Scheme of Man's Salvation.—Let it be observ'd now,

2. That all Works of the Unregenerate, supposed to be of a true moral Complexion, as alone described, are the very Works, which the Scripture clearly points out as design'd to be excluded, for the sake of excluding Boasting. Here it may suffice to cite two or three plain Texts. Thus, Eph. 2. 5. Even when we were dead in Sins, be hath quickned us together with Christ. (By Grace ye are saved.) The Sin­ner's being brought into a State of Salvation is here, in the strongest Language, intirely resolved into Divine Grace: and in like Language the same Apostle declares it to be not of our selves,—not of Works, ver. 8, 9. And agreeably in Rom. 11. 6. Grace and Works are op­posed to each other, as incompatible in this Affair. Now that Works of the Unregenerate, pretended to be of a spiritual and moral Cha­racter, are comprehended here, and designedly by the Apostle ex­cluded from the Business of their being brought into a saved State, appears evidently, by his fetching an Argument, for the Illustration of Divine Grace, from their antecedent State, which he describes as a State of spiritual or moral Death: and this carries in it the strongest Implication of their [...]o [...] [...]apacity to do Works truly moral and spiritual These Works then, to preserve the Force of the Apostle's Reasoning, we must understand to be here meant by him, when he [Page 46] tells them, that their Salvation was not of Works.—And this Con­struction may be enforc'd, by considering the End, for which (as he observes) Works are excluded, [...]. 9. Not of Works, lest any Man should Boast. Upon which it immediately follows, For we are God's Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good Works.—Salvation cannot be of Works, any good Works whatsoever; because none truly such in God's Account can possibly precede Salvation begun, in this being created in Christ Jesus.—Though in the first Passage the Apostle speaks of Works indefinitely, yet the End he assigns for their Exclusion, Discovers a particular Reference to such as are of a lau­dable Aspect, and supposed by the Doers of them to be morally Good in the Account of God. Else what Grounds of Boasting could be pretended?—However, to intimate the moral specifick Difference there is between the best Duties done before Conversion, and the same done after, he distinguishes the latter by a peculiar Epithet, and in­titles them Good Works. And the Force of the Argument here, to confirm his Point, lies chiefly in this, That good Works (truly such) are subsequent Fruits of Salvation already begun in the Soul: and therefore they cannot either in the Nature of Things, by their own Efficiency, be the productive Cause of it; nor yet in the Scheme of the Gospel, by Divine Appointment, be the Covenant-Condition of it; nor by virtue of any relative or intrinsick Excellency in them, be the moving Consideration with God to bestow it; because in either of these Views of them, an Antecedency is supposed, that is repug­nant to the Scripture, which dates their Existence, not before, but after Conversion. For we are his Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good Works.

Now can there be any Shadow of a reasonable Ground to doubt, whether the Apostle, where he rejects the Notion of Salvation's being of Works (so far as it respects its Beginning at least) intends such Works of the Unregenerate, as they are apt fondly to imagine are of the same moral [...]nd and excellent Quality with those that Believers are said to be created in Christ Jesus unto, which the Apostle calls good Works, and which are so indeed, being in point of Principle and End and Manner, as well as Matter, truly (though imperfectly) confor­mable to the Nature and Will of God, the Rule and Pattern of moral Goodness.—Surely it were unworthy the Character of an in­spir'd Apostle, to make him so weak and inconsistent a Reasoner, as to argue, that Salvation is not of Works, because otherwise Boast­ing were not excluded; and yet all the while to have his Eye here, not to such Works as Men flatter themselves with the Supposition of a Moral Goodness in, and which only can be imagin'd to carry in them [Page 47] any Grounds of Boasting, but to others of a quite different Kind, that can be supposed to afford no possible Pretext for this Boasting; for the sake of excluding which, the Apostle declares Works exclu­ded! — We must therefore, were it only in Reverence to the inspir'd Writer, conclude, that when he shuts out Works from hav­ing a Hand in beginning the Salvation of a Sinner, he means to exclude all Works of the Unregenerate, whatever Goodness or moral Excellence they may conceive to be in them.

I would subjoin here; If I mistake not, there are these two or three Things will clearly follow from the Tenor and Scope of the Apostle's Argumentation.

(1.) That all Boasting on the Part of the Unregenerate, is so founded on that false Hypothesis of their Capacity to do (in their present State) Works morally good, holy or spiritual, in God's Ac­count, as that the excluding of Works, under that Notion or Respect will effectually exclude them under every Notion or Respect, that implies any the least Ground for Boasting; or, which amounts to the same Thing, will effectually exclude all Boasting, in that Case.—And this will appear, if we consider (1.) That it is manifestly the Apostle's Design here, so to exclude Works, as by that Means to exclude all Boasting. Says he. Not of Works, lest any Man should Boast: q. d. Not of Works, consider'd under any Notion whatever that contains in it Grounds of Boasting.—And (2)That with this View, he sets himself to prove, that good Works, truly such, are consequential to Regeneration, and so an impossible Supposition before it. Thus his Reaso­nings stand in Connection:—Not of Works, lest any Man should Boast. For we are God's Workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good Works. This proves, that when he uses the exclusive Phrase, Not of Works, he must have his Eye to such Works only, as being supposed to have in them the true Excellency of good Works, do under that Notion contain Grounds of Boasting. And now to shew, that in the Gospel-Scheme of Salvation there's no Room left for any such Boasting he destroys the very Notion on which this is founded, by assuring us that Works truly good do follow Conversion, or the new Creation in Christ Jesus, and therefore can never have Place in an unregenerate State. This View of his Reasoning makes it close, and effectual to cut off Boasting: but to take it in any other View, not consistent with this, will (for ought I can see) leave it loose, incoherent, and utterly in­conclusive to his Purpose; which it were most unworthy and ab­surd to suppose in the Case of an Apostle, writing under divine Inspiration.—Besides, this Argument may be strengthen'd by consi­dering (as before suggested) the Nature of Things. For, seeing mo­ral [Page 48] Goodness is the true Excellency of human Nature and human Ac­tions, if that be deny'd ia the Case of an Unregenerate Man, what Grounds are les [...] such an one of glorying in himself, or boasting in any Efforts of his own towards Salvation? So that the Apostle here, methinks, appears as a Master-Workman indeed; at one Blow strik­ing Death at the Root of all Boasting, in this Affair of obtaining the Salvation which is by Crist Jesus. For how is it possible, in the Na­ture of Things, that Works destitute of all true moral Excellency, should by any Efficacy of theirs be productive of saving Conversion, or ingenerate moral Goodness id Men! Tins were absurdly to sup­pose them, to give what they have [...]; yea, to produce an Effect, not only transcending the Power of the Cause, but even contrary to the Bias of its Nature!—Or how is it possible they should be me­ritoriously (any more than efficiently) the Cause of a Goodness and Excellency, infinitely superior to any Thing in themselves!—Or how can they rationally be supposed to have so much as the Force of a Condition in the Divine Promises, intitling the Doer of them to infinite Blessings at the Hand of God; when at the same time they have in them Nothing at all of the formal Nature of true Goodness or moral Excellency, to fit them for his Regards as a moral Governor!

But I proceed to [...]other Observation, referring to the Apostle's Reasoning here [...] That from this it must follow,

(2) That to [...]ppose him excluding Works of the Unregenerate under every other possible Notion, save this only of their being morally Good, would by no means reach his profess'd Design, which is to exclude Boasting. For so long as the moral Goodness of these Works is maintain'd, the main Spring of Boasting still remains. To suppose them excluded under every other Notion whatever, but not under this, would therefore not answer the End aim'd at in their Exclusion, which is to shut out all Boasting.

Moreover,

(3.) It will hence clearly follow, that every Scripture-Instance of excluding Works for the sake of excluding Boasting, must design to exclude them under this Notion, as vainly imagin'd to be morally Good before God: since (as we have seen before) 'tis impossible, that Boasting in that Case should otherwise be excluded.

But to go on to another Text of Scripture.—

The Truth I am defending, is clearly held forth, I think, in those other Words above-quoted from 1 Cor. 4. 7. Who maketh thee to dif­fer from another? And what hast thou, that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory (or boast) as though thou hadst not received it? The Design of the Apostle here appears to me [Page 49] very much the same, as in the former Text; namely, to cut off all Pretences for Boasting (whether of the Corinthian Professors, or their Teachers) in their respective Attainments, under the Advantages of the Gospel, either in point of special Grace, or extraordinary Gifts. And the Median he makes Use of here, is for Substance the same too; namely, the shutting out Works, supposed to have moral Worthiness it them, from being die procuring Cause of their At­tainments, and resolving them into the sovereign Pleasure of the Divine Donor; to whom they stood Debtors for all their Receipts.—Here are two Questions or Demands. The First is Who maketh thee to differ? To which the Answer, here plainly imply'd, is, That Di­vine Benefactor, who is the sovereign Author of every good and perfect Gift. It's He, that puts the Distinction upon Men, when they excell others in valuable Attainments 'Tis the Result of his free Favour, 'Tis not any antecedent moral Excellency in any thus distinguish'd, that makes the Difference: Or in Scripture-Language, Not by Works of Righteousness, which they have done—The other Question is, What hast thou, that thou didst not recieve q. d. These your distinguishing Attainments under the Gospel in which you are. so apt to glory, are you not indebted for them to the Father of Lights and God of all Grace, who has freely given them to you! Whether as to sanctifying Grace, or extraordinary Gifts, are you not a meer Receiver! Had you Power in your self to acquire them; or Me­rit, to purchase them! Or with regard to special Grace, had you even any antecedent moral or spiritual Excellency, to intitle you to it! Surely, you must confess, It is not of Works. For you could do None worthy of God, before you receiv'd his special Grace: And here you was a meer Receiver, in Opposition to any Right whatever, or active Acquirement, on your part. You are in every respect wholly a Docter to the absolute Grace of the Divine Given.—Thus, tak­ing the Apostle's Question in this its natural and unsore'd Meaning, there appears in it a just. Foundation for his Conclusion, which fol­lows, by way of Query again,—Now if thou didst receive it why then dost thou glory, as If thou didst not receive it! A very close Expostula­tion, and carrying in it Matter of full Conviction to the Reason and Conscience of those he wrote to, that they had no possible Room left for boasting on the Account of any their distinguishing Attainments. It's good Argument why Men should not glory in any Gifts of Nature, or common Providence, because these are what they have re­ceived. But surely these were not the only, nor the principal Things, that the Apostle most probably had in his Eye, or that the Corinthi­an so [...]oasted in. And though extraordinary Gifts, of the superna­tural [Page 50] and miraculous kind, are included here; yet certainly speci­al Grace is by no Means to be thought excluded, as some pretend. For how would this comport with the Apostles Reasoning and with his main Design here? Would not a proud Elation of Mind in any under the View of a supposed moral Goodness in their Endeavours to get special Grace, be as really in the Apostle's Sense Glorying or Boasting, as an undue Lifting-up themselves under the View of their Endeavours to acquire those extraordinary Gifts? And is not the at­taining of special Grace by the Creature's own Doings, rather higher Ground of Boasting, than what appears in the other Case; by how much 'tis of a more excellent Nature and superior Importance? If the one's being received is a Consideration sufficient to silence all Boasting, in that Particular, why should not the same Consideration be allowed equal Force in the Case of the other, which is as much re­ceived also? Surelv, by Parity of Reason, at least, the Apostle's Re­buke to the Corinthian Boaster is applicable to the Case of glorying in an imagin'd moral Goodness of unregenerate Men's Endeavours to attain converting Grace. For any, upon a suppos'd Attainment of this Grace, to ascribe it to an imaginary moral Excellency in his own Efforts, while unregenerate, seems evidently to be a glorying in it, as though be received it not; and so brings him under the Correction of the Apostle's Rod, as here exercised.

The Truth, as it appears to me, is (1.) That all Works morally good and approvable before God, are utterly impracticable by the fallen Creature, whilst unrenewed, and under the Dominion of Sin; as, Sir, you concede the Subject of our present Controversy to be.—And (2.) That for a poor Sinner, in this his guilty, impotent, and forlorn State, to be elated or [...]ffed up with a vain Imagination of its being in his Power (even under the highest: Refinements of Na­ture, with the Help of meer common Grace) to perform Acts of pro­per moral Virtue, or true Holiness, pleasing and acceptable to God; I say, for such a one to cherish this Principle, to profess it, and to pursue it in Practice, attempting Duties upon this Presumption, and governing his Hopes of Success in Conformity to it, This is nothing less than that Boasting and spiritual Vain-glory, which the Gospel-Scheme of Salvation every where excludes.—And then (3.)Because this Boasting is what arises from the Pride of the carnal Mind, toge­ther with Ignorance of the Depth of that Ruin of a fallen State Man­kind are born in; and hath no Foundation at all in the Nature of Things, in the Truth of Fact, or in the Scheme of the Gospel; greatly derogates from the Glory of redeeming Mercy, and from the Honour of the blessed Mediator; denies discriminating Grace to­wards; [Page 51] the saved of the Lord, and lessens their sensible Obligations in point of Gratitude; whilst at the same Time it exalts the fallen Creature, quiets him in his own Sufficiency, tempts him to delay his Concern about Salvation, leads him to trust in himself when essaying Conversion to God, and stands a Bar in the way of his Coming to God by Jesus Christ, for Mercy absolutely free, and unpromised, as to any Duties and Doings of his: I say, Because this Boasting is such a moral Evil in it self, and is pregnant with so many other Evils, hence it is undoubtedly, that the Holy Ghost in Scripture so repeatedly and with so much Earnestness insists upon the Exclusion of it.—And (4) Because this Sin of Boasting is so inseparably connected with the Opinion of true moral Goodness in the Works of the Un­regenerate, as that it is impossible to exclude or reject the former, with­out also excluding and disallowing the latter (the Reason whereof is exceeding obvious, viz. because they that entertain that Opinion, do entertain a false Notion of their own Excellency; and they that build upon a false Notion of their own Excellency, must needs be puffed up and boast in themselves) therefore the one is excluded for the sake of excluding the other. Not of Works, lest any Man should boast.—What hast thou, in point of supposed true Goodness and vi­tal Religion, that thou hast not received, at the hand of Divine sove­reign Grace? Now if thou didst receive it thus, why dost thou boast, as though thou hadst not thus received it; Or, as if it were not of Grace, but of Works?

I shall now shut up the present Argument, with this summary Re­collection of all the foregoing Reasonings under it. Since 'tis in­disputably evident from the several Scriptures above recited, that all Works, proceeding Salvation actually begun in Conversion, are in the Gospel-Scheme excluded for the Sake of excluding all Boasting: — And since it thence follows with like Clearness, that they are excluded under every Notion of them, that contains Reasons or Grounds of Boasting:— And since it is abundantly evident, that consider'd under the Notion of their having true moral Goodness in them, they contain the Grounds and Reasons of Boasting:—And since it has been evidenced, that the Holy Ghost in Scripture doth actually and on Design exclude them under this Notion, that thereby all Boasting might be excluded :—And lastly, since it hath been made appear, that Glorying, or Boasting, in the Case before us, is so founded in or inseparably connected with that Idea of the Doings of the Unregenerate (their having some moral Excellency or true Holiness in them) as that it is impossible, such Glorying should other-wise be totally excluded, than by excluding all such Works, consi­der'd [Page 52] under that Idea:—From these several Considerations said to­gether, I shall take it at present for a Point fully prov'd, That all Works of the Unregenerate, supposed to have the said idea an­nexed to them, are under that Notion certainly excluded, for the sake of excluding Boasting, from the Business of Sinners being bro't into a State of Salvation.—The other Point proposed was—

[2.] That all Works of the Unregenerate, done by them whilst such, and respected by them as morally good, being thus excluded, it is a necessary Consequence, That they can't possibly be included in the Covenant-Promise, as reveal'd Conditions, upon the Performance of which, God has engag'd to confer special Grace upon Sinners.— This appears to me a genuine and clear Inference from what has been said. For, if all Performances and Endeavours of Men, previ­ous to a renewed State, are, as respected under the Notion of their being morally Good before God, excluded the Business of their Do­ing brought to Salvation (or, which is the same in Effect, deny'd to have any Existence, as consider'd under that formal Notion) in Order that thereby all Boasting in and of themselves might be shut­ [...]; it must hence inevitably follow, that they can have no possible Place in the Gospel Covenant, as Conditions, to which God has made a Promise of special Grace.—If, as consider'd under that Notion of their being morally good or holy and spiritual, in God's Account, the Scripture denies them any actual Being, it must necessarily deny them also, as consider'd under the Notion of their being Conditions, in a Promise of special Grace made to the Doings of the Unregenerate. Otherwise, we make the Gospel solemnly to establish that for Con­dition, which at the same time it has excluded as a meer Non-Entity; having no Existence, as morally consider'd, but in the vain Imagina­tion of the haughty Sinner. What is this, but to make the Gospel as it were destroy it self? Here were "sad Havock" indeed!

That which remains now before me, is, to obviate some Objec­tions, that may perhaps be brought against me, to invalidate my Rea­sonings in Answer to you and my Way of arguing from such Texts of Scripture as I have alledg'd against you.—And here it may be suggested in Opposition to me,

OBJECT. 1. That I have all along [...]'d upon a false Hypothesis, founded on a Misconstruction of those Scriptures, which speak of Words as excluded for the Sake of excluding Boasting; since they are only Works of the Ceremonial Law not of the Moral.

To which I answer: The Scriptures, in the Places consider'd, speak of Works indefinitely, without any explicit Limitation to a particular [Page 53] Law; and, as I think, without any suct. Restriction necessarily im­ply'd. Be it the Law of Moses, as contradistinguish'd to the Law of Faith, that is in general refer'd to, and in all its Views, whether as Moral, Ceremonial, or Judicial, still according to the reveal'd Scheme of Salvation it stands a firm and unalterable Truth, Not of Works lest any Men should Boast, Why then should the Sense be restrain'd, as in the Objection! But I observe further, That the true Scripture-Idea of Works in the Texts refer'd to, is of such Latitude as to ex­tend to Works of appearing moral Goodness, done in an unregene­rate State, is evident from the Name and Stile, by which the Works excluded are sometimes expresly characteriz'd: as in in that Text, Not by Works if Righteousness, which we have [...], &c. And in those [...]ces, As many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse— But the Man that doeth them, shall [...] in them.—For Moses describeth the Rightheousness which is of the Law, that the Man which doeth these Things, shall live by them.—Which are Descriptions most properly applicable to Works of the Moral Law, and seem more immediately to have them in View.—Yet further, I argue from the profess'd De­sign of Works being excluded. How is it possible to exclude all Boasting, if only Ceremonial Works were excluded? Do such Works only leave Room for Boasting? Nay, since Works of the Ceremonial Law are but Matters of Indifference in themselves, how do these contain any Grounds at all of Boasting, save on the Account of a supposed moral Goodness in them; in virtue of their being reducible to the moral Law, as so many Instances of that general Duty here­in requir'd. Subjection to God's revealed Will? Besides, [...] all the World, Gentiles, as well as Jews, are equally concern'd in the Gospel-Scheme of Salvation, why should it not in this important Point of excluding Works for the sake of excluding Boasting, be interpreted so as to reach every one's Case; and comprehend, not only those at­tached to the Lo [...]tical Law, but even the greatest Aliens from the Common [...]h of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenants of Promise, knowing nothing further than the Law written on their Hearts, and being (as the Scripture speaks) a Law unto themselves? And it is to any Purpose, to observe such were the Ephesians (not Jews, but Sin­ners of the Gentiles) such the Corinthians, and such the Romans, to whom the Apostle is writing in the Epistles, whence I have alledged the principal Texts from which I have been reasoning against your Opinion, and which account for their (as well as the Jews) Salva­tion as of Grace, and not of Works. A sure Sign (I think) that the seeming Virtues or moral Endeavours of the soberest Heathen, and by Consequence the best Works of Unregenerate Professor [...] [Page 54] the Gospel; are in the Apostle's Sense excluded for the sake of ex­cluding Boasting; and not Jewish Observances only, as is by some pre­tended. However, if still this Objection sticks with any, I refer them to Mr. Edwards on Justification (Pag. 29, to 50.) where this Point is distinctly handled, and the Objection answer'd, I think, in the most satisfactory Manner.

Now, Sir, if you are pleas'd to except against the Fairness of my Management in this Debate,

OBJECT. 2. That I make frequent Use of the Term, WORKS which is of a doubtful sigification, without a determinate Idea, and without any due Distinction—

I answer. That in general by Works, in this Controversy, it seems to me agreed between us, are meant the apparent good Works of Persons not yet throughly converted t [...] God, whom we usually call Unregenerate. And I use a Variety of Terms, such as Doings, En­deavours, Seekings, Strivings, &c. because I would speak comprehen­sively, and include all possible Works of the Unregenerate, which you may be disposed to call good Works, and to which you are apt to conceive a Promise of special Grace made in Scripture.—Though I often speak of Works that appear to carry moral Excellency in them, I don't mean to confine the Idea to what is commonly call'd moral Honesty, Sobriety, social Virtue, or the like, exclusive of what is of the devotional Kind, and a more Evangelical Aspect: but I take into the Idea and really intend all those Attainments, Performances, and Qualifications, of whatever Sort, that enter into the Character of any Man seeming to be religious, but deceiving his own Heart. In short, Sir, I include in the Term, Works, every Idea (i.e. every Idea that can in Truth agree to the Case of one not yet thoroughly converted, but still under the Dominion of Sin) which you have been pleas'd to put into your Description (Pag. 25.) of the Man, whom you hold to be the Object of a Promise of Divine efficacious Aid, or special Grace.—This, I think, is plain enough from the Current of my Language every where through the whole of what I have said.

But to proceed—If you object to me again,

OBJECT. 3. That I seem sometimes to insinuate, as if the Opinion held by you in this Matter were too nearly connected with the Doctrine of Merit; though you have expresly renounced all Pretence of Merit in the present Case, and therefore (as you imagine) are far from teaching [...] setting up that Boasting, which the Gospel designs to exclude—

To this I reply, in the following Observations,

I. That this Objection labours of a grand Mistake (already suf­ficiently expos'd) as if the Exclusion of Merit in Works were an [Page 55] intire Exclusion of Boasting. For, as we have seen, there are other Notions of these Works, that contain Grounds of Boasting (in the Apostle's Sense) besides that of their being meritorious: And it is the evident Design of the Gospel to exclude Works under every No­tion of them, that (being admitted) would let in Boasting.—How­ever, in Order to a more full answering the Objection, it seems ne­cessary to observe,

2. That the Word Merit is variously to be understood, [...]i [...]ner in a high and strict, or in a lower and more large Sense. You know very well, Sir, the usual Distinction between Merit of Condignity and Merit; of Congruity. And here according to the Sense in which: you would be understood, when you say you exclude Merit, so must the Answer be.

If we understand Merit in the absolute and most proper Sense them I say, it must be a great Mistake, to suppose that the excluding or denying of this only amounts to the full Sense of the Scripture, when it excludes Works, for the Sake of excluding Boasting.—But I per­suade my self, Sir, there's no Need of arguing this Point with you. I think, you must intend the lower Kind of Merit, or Merit in the large Sense, when you exclude it from the Works of the Unregene­rate. Now by this Kind of Merit, I conceive, must be intended at least some moral Excellency, true Worthiness, Goodness, or Virtue in their Works, before God. And is this, Sir, the Merit, which you renounce? Is the Exclusion of this Kind of Merit the just Import of your Expressions, where you tell us (P. 24.) In his (i.e. Christ's Right we must plead (viz. for special Grace) who has purchased this Benefit for us; and not in the Virtue or Merit of any Thing we do, which we can only humbly consider as meer Qualifications, &c. Do you (I say) really mean here to disclaim all Pretence of Merit, in the lowest and largest Sense of the Word, as above explain'd? If so, I answer then, there must be a palpable Inconsistency in your Scheme: Since you strenuously insist, throughout your Letter, that God in dispensing his special Grace acts not in the Character of an absolute Proprietor or sovereign Benefactor, at perfect Liberty to give or to withhold the Benefit as he pleaseth, but only in the Capa­city of a moral Governor and righteous Judge of the Behaviour and Im­provements of his Creatures, and dispensing it or not according to their Conduct in the Use of the Talent they've receiv'd. Now, if this be so,. I beg to be inform'd what that Behaviour of the Creature is, according to you, which is thus the Rule of God's Dispensation in this Matter. Can it be any other than a true moral Behaviour, in its formal Na­ture, pleasing to God? Is it possible that the Creature's Behaviour [Page 56] should pass the Test with him as a moral Governor and righteous Judge; and yet ac the same Time not have any true moral Goodness in it! Which it cannot have, and so cannot have the lower Kind of Merit, Worthiness, or recommending Excellency, unless it be as well for­mally as materially good. How evidently impossible the Case! And how absurd the Supposition! For a Thing to be, and not to be, at the same Time and in the same Respect, is scarce a greater Con­tradicition.

Now since there is this notorious Incoherence in your Scheme, and both Parts of a Contradiction can't be true, one of the repugnant Principle your must certainly give up. And give up which you will, for ought I can see, your Scheme must fall with it. For if you part with your Principle, of God's acting in this Affair as a moral Governor and righteous Judge if his Creatures Behaviour and Improvements, making this the Rule according to which he dispenseth his special Grace to the fallen Creature; I say, if you give up this Point, it must then una­voidably follow, that God herein acts only as an absolute Proprietor and sovereign Benefactor: which being all that Mr. Cooke or I con­tend for, there's an End of the Debate. Or, if you give up the other Principle (which you say you allow) of the fallen Creatures pleading. (viz. for special Grace) MEERLY in the Virtue of what CHRIST hath done for us, or in Right of his Purchase, and not at all in the Virtue or Merit of any Thing we do; I say, if you relinquish this Point, then it fol­lows, for ought I can see, that you must assert a sort of Merit or Worthiness, even in the Works of an unregenerate Man, who is in­terested hereby in a Promise, which passes over to him. Right to special Grace, pleadable before God. But what a vain Imagination is this (as shewn before) and how contrary to the whole Tenor of the Scriptures!—In short, when you profess to allow, that we are not at all to plead in the Virtue or Merit of any Thing we do, your Mean­ing must be, either to teach us, that although in Fact there is true Virtue or Merit in our Doings, some moral Goodness or Worthiness which speaks them proper Qualification for the Benefit of special Grace, and although the actual Subject of these Qualifications has a Right to this Grace passed over to him by God's Promise, yet ne­vertheless that we must not plead this Right, when asking, for the promis'd Benefit; in which View of your Words, you renounce, not the Virtue or Merit of what we do, but only the making it a Plea.— A poor lean Concession! And not half enough, to clear you of setting up that Boasting, which the Gospel excludes.—Or, if you mean any [...]ing further it must be her to renounce, either the very Being of this; [...] Merit is the unregenerate Man's Doings or else [only the [Page 57] Right passed over to him in the Promise and made sure to him by Means of such, his virtuous and worthy Doings. Now, if we take your Words in the latter Sense, it will be palpably inconsistent with the whole Scope of your Letter: And if in the former Sense, his too will be inconsistent with the many Expressions, wherein you seem evidently to suppose a Degree of moral Excellency and formal Good­ness, or acceptable, Obedience to God, in the Doings and Endea­vours of the Man solicitous for Salvation, though not yet throughly con­verted.—But, Sir, if we would be intirely consistent with the Gospel, which utterly excludes all Boasting, we must teach the Sinner, not meerly to forbear pleading in Virtue or Merit of any Thing he does, but likewise to renounce the Virtue or Merit it self, even all of the lower kind, and in the large Sense of the Words. Otherwise, as I've already argu'd, that Boasting, which the Gospel shuts out can never effectually be excluded: but there will always lie in the Sinner's way a very invincible Temptation, to trust in himself that he is righteous, or to look to be saved by Works of Righteousness, which he hath done, and not according to God's Mercy, by the Washing of Regeneration.—Ne­vertheless what faith the Scripture? Not of Works, lest any Man should boast.

The Inconsistency here urged against your Principles, I acknow­ledge. Sir, is nothing peculiar to you: but is common to those in the Arminian Scheme, They all profess wholly to disclaim the Plea of Merit, in the Case before us; and yet they assert, with you, God's dispensing his efficacious Aid or special Grace, not as an absolute so­vereign Benefactor, but as a moral Governor and righteous Judge of the Behaviour and Improvements of his Creatures: A Principle, I think, ne­cessarily implying the Supposition of some inherent true moral Excel­lency in the Sinner's Doings; which is Merit, of the lower kind. And this Worthiness they hold (with you) to be the Qualification for re­ceiving of special Grace: to which Grace they also with you assert a Right, by God's Promise, passed over to the Man so qualified. Tho' in some Sense they renounce the Doctrine of Me­rit, yet they speak of the Grace of God even in the first special Instance, as stipulat­ed Good and of the unrenew'd Man's Endeavours (whilst such) as the Covenant-Condition, &c. Which, at least, seems to be setting up a Merit of Congruity. Thus, Sir, in common with you, those in the Ar­minian Scheme advance Opinions mutually repugnant, and build again the Things which they had destroy'd.

In brief, Sir, You and they may soften your Language as you please, and be it as it will in the point of Consistency with yourselves, yet so long as you are for a Method of Grace, according to the Scheme de­fended [Page 58] in your Letter, as it appears from what has been said, that you do in Reality, include and abett that Glorying or Boasting, which the Gospel of Reconciliation forever excludes, I must think you so far not consistent with the Scripture. The Scripture says, Not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy God saved us. And again, He hath saved us, and called us with an holy Cal [...]ing, not according to our Works, but according to his own Purpose and Grace. Whereas, your Scheme tells us, on the contrary, That although com­mon Grace be absolutely given, yet special Grace, by which only we are effectually called and saved, is not given absolutely, in a sove­reign Manner, but in a federal Way, in Correspondence with certain Divine Promises and Stipulations, by which God has passed over tons a Right, as least a conditional Right to the promised Blessing, and which he executes as a moral Governor and righteous Judge of his Creatures Behaviour and Improvements, adjusting his Dispensations of saving Grace by the Use they have made of the Talent commmitted to them, &c. Of all which Talk I can make no other Construction, but this; Not according to his own Purpose and Grace, but according to our Works, He calls us, and saves us, i. e. initially: Which is the very Reverse of the Scripture-Account of the true Method of Grace.—But it may be, you will be for compounding the Matter; and say, that it is ac­cording to both Grace and Works together; and that when Salvati­on is ascrib'd to Grace, or deny'd to Works, such Scripture-Expressi­ons are not to be understood absolutely, as if it were of Grace in an exclusive Sense, [...] as if it were not of Works in a subordinate Sense: for it may [...]e of both in different Respects, concurring and uniting in this Affair; and so far as it is of the latter 'tis only as this has the Place of a Condition in the Promise of special Grace.—But for Answer, I must own (Sir) for my part, I cou'd never tell how to reconcile this Notion to those express Words of the A­postle: If by GRACE, then is it no more of WORKS: But if it be of WORKS, then is it no more GRACE. According to the Apostle here, it seems. Works and Grace can't be so blended together, as you may apprehend, in this Affair of Sinners being brought into a State of Sal­vation. Because, for Salvation to be by Grace, and to be of Works; or (which means the same) to be according to God's Purpose and Grace, and to be according to our Works, i.e. supposed Works of Righteousness antecedent to Regeneration; these are real Contraries, mutually ex­pelling each other, so that if the one takes Place, the other of Con­sequence is excluded. Otherwise GRACE is no more Grace: or, Otherwise WORK is no more Work. Here the Apostle teaches us thus much, at least; That to suppose Salvation to be of Works, is to destroy the [Page 59] Nature or deny the Being of Grace: and on the contrary, to sup­pose it to be by Grace, is to destroy the Nature or deny the Being of Works. How then can these unalterable Opposites possibly be made to agree in this Affair? The Attempt is vain, and will be found an eternal Impossibility, so long as the Gospel excludes Works in the Manner it does, with a View to secure the Honour of God's Grace, and intirely remove every Ground of Man's Boasting. For some Ground of Boasting will remain, so long as Salvation is imagin'd to be of Works, whether in Regard of any true moral Worthiness in them, or any conditional Right annexed to them, which God as a moral Governor is supposed to act in Consideration of, when he bestows his special Grace on the fallen Creature. If Works of an unregenerate Man, whilst such, be allow'd the Power of a suspending Condition, or That to which a Promise of converting Grace is made, in Virtue where­of a Right to it is passed over to him,—this is such a Scheme as flatters the natural Pride of his Heart, leads to a Claim of Merit (at least of the lower kind) and opens a wide Door to Boasting and Vain-glory.

But, it it be further objected here,

OBJECT. 4. That, granting the Works of Unregenerate Men, (suppos'd morally good) to be by the Gospel, for the sake of excluding Boasting, all of them excluded from being (under that Notion) the Condition, to which a Promise of special Grace is made; and granting, that to make Works conditional in this Case as consider'd under that Notion, would be to establish that Boasting, which the Gospel excludes: yet it will by no Means follow upon these Concessions, that the Hypothesis of their being made conditional, is so essentially connected with and so intirely founded in that Notion of them, as that we cannot rationally suppose them consider'd, in the conditional Promise under some other Respect or View, fairly consistent with the perfect Exclusion of Boasting.

For Answer to this plausible Pretence, it may suffice to say in brief;—I know of none that deny God's acting in this Affair as a so­vereign Proprietor and absolute Benefactor, who do not at the same Time assert his acting in it as a moral Governor and righteous Judge of the Behaviour of his Creatures. But how is it possible, He should act in this last Character, without respecting at all the moral Goodness of their Behaviour? Can he be suppos'd, while acting in this Capacity, and so necessarily having an Eye to his Rule of Govern­ment, yet to have no Eye to the Goodness of that Behaviour, in point of its Conformity to his preceptive Will, although it be the esta­blish'd Condition, on which he has suspended his Promise of special Grace? If the Behaviour have true moral Excellency in it, why should [Page 60] not this he both respected in the conditional Promise, and ey'd by him in his Execution of it?—Nor am I able to conceive what other possible Notion of Men's Behaviour, any can suppose respected in mak­ing this Conditional of the promised Blessing, but what, if receiv'd and acted upon, will certainly, be inconsistent (as well as that of moral Goodness) with the intire and absolute Exclusion of Boasting in a Gospel-Account.—To reduce the Controversy here ta an Issue, I wou'd a little further argue the Point, after I have observ'd, That in what­ever other View or Notion Works may possibly be consider'd in this Affair, yet if the Notion of their moral Goodness be at all taken in, it seems to me impossible perfectly to exclude Boasting. I say then, Either this Notion of moral Goodness, in the Works of Unregenerate Men is quite excluded from this Affair of their being made Conditi­onal of the Bestowment of special Grace; Or it is not quite exclu­ded.—Now, if you assume, and say. That this Notion of them is intirely excluded, i.e. if you give up the Point of their moral Goodness, and allow that there is nothing of true Rectitude or godly Sincerity in the best Endeavours of the Man (according to your Description) in a middle State, neither relentless nor yet thoroughly converted: To this I reply, that upon such a View of the Case it don't appear to me in the least rational, to suppose Endeavours of this Kind made condi­tional in a Divine Promise, upon any other Notion of them whatever. If God in dispensing special Grace to such a Man, does at all respect his Endeavours, as the Consideration upon which he acts, He must (I think) respect them either as morally good, or not.—But now to suppose Him acting herein upon the Consideration of Works not morally good, is to suppose a Thing that has no Congruity with the Idea of a moral Governor and righteous Judge. If you don't maintain the Being of some true moral Rectitude and godly Sincerity in these Doings of the striving Sinner, while you plead for their Conditionality, methinks you had better divest them of this too, in Honour to God's rectoral Holiness, rather than suppose Him annexing a great and precious Promise to a morally unfit Condition, or dispensing a promised Blessing without respecting any Goodness in his Creature's Behaviour, tho' made the Rule of his Administration. I cannot but think it infinitely more honorary to God, to suppose with us, that in this Affair of dispensing special Grace to the Unregenerate, He acts as a sovereign Benefactor, out of absolute, and (meaning in Opposition to your con­ditional Promise) out of unpromised, and irrespective Mercy, accord­ing to the meer good Pleasure of his Will. I think, you must be oblig'd to come to this Conclusion, if you renounce all Pretence of moral Goodness in the Condition you plead for; since, without your sup­posing [Page 61] some true moral Excellency in the Creatures Behaviour, I dont see how you can possibly reconcile its being a Divinely establish'd Condition in this Affair with the Idea of God as a moral Governor and righteous Judge.—But after all, it may be you will on the other hand assume, and say, That you allow of some true moral Goodness in these Doings of the seeking striving Sinner, though not yet intirely devoted to God in Christ, and allow their being (at least partly) under that Notion made conditional in the Case before us. Now if so you assume, then I answer, That whatever other Notion you may imagine respected in making the Sinners Endeavours conditional of the Bestowment of special Grace, and however consistent you may suppose that to be with the Exclusion of Boasting; Yet if this Notion of moral Good­ness be at all admitted in the Case, some Ground of Boasting cer­tainly remains, which (as we have seen) the Gospel-Scheme Sal­vation intirely excludes and with a View to the Exclusion of this does exclude all Works that contain any Grounds of Boasting, as do these pretended good Works, done before converting Grace, and made conditional of it.— In short, the Gospel (as often observed) excludes such Works, for the sake of excluding Boasting. It excludes Works, denies their very Being or Existence, under the Notion of good Works, and consequently denies their Conditionality: which is, to all Intents and Purposes, sufficiently to exclude Boasting.— Whereas now your Scheme, which sets up Works of the Unregene­rate for a Condition in the Covenant of Grace, does on the contrary suppose the actual Existence of good Works before Conversion, and claims a peculiar Honour for them in the Affair of Man's Salva­tion: which certainly leaves Room for that Boasting, the Gospel designs to exclude.—If after all I have offer'd from Scripture you still dispute there being any Ground of Boasting, in this Case, I will offer this plain Argument from Reason, for your Conviction.—For the fallen Creature, not yet renewed in the Spirit of his Mind, but under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin (as is the Case of the striving Sinner according to your own Description) for this Man (I say) to entertain an Opinion of moral Rectitude and true Goodness in any of his Doings of Improvements, is to entertain a false Opinion of his own Excellence: and so far as he does this, he is undoubtedly proud and high-minded, in the Account of the Gospel. And now for this Man, this poor empty vain Man, thus puffed up with a false Conceit of his own Doings, to stamp them with the dignifying Cha­racter of Conditions in God's Covenant of Grace passing over to him a Right to promised Blessings, This is what, I think, includes in its essential Idea that very Boasting, which the Gospel excludes; [Page 62] or at least, you must allow, this leaves large Room for it, and lay in the Sinner's Way a powerful Temptation to this Soul-ruining moral Evil.—Upon these Grounds, I leave it (Sir) with you to consider seriously whether you are not, so far as you have been setting up and pleading for this Opinion and this Character of the Un­regenerate Man's Doings, justly chargeable with setting up and pleading for that same Boasting, which the Gospel-Scheme of Salva­tion has most absolutely excluded, or deny'd any Place to in this Affair: as we have seen from a Variety of Scriptures. And the Construction I have made of the sacred Text, I doubt not might easily be confirm'd from the Articles and Homilies of your own Church, from the concurrent Sense of the English Reformers, from the publick Confessions of the foreign Protestant Churches, &c. which would all come in as a Cloud of Witnesses on my Side of the Question. But I wave human Authorities, in the present Debate.

Thus, Sir, while you rise so high in your uncandid Reflections upon Mr. Cooke and others with him, as even to tax them of cor­rupting the Simplicity of the Gospel, you see for what Reasons I think the Imputation, (black as it is) rebounds on your own Head. For it must needs be a warping from the true Scheme of Salvation, and so far a corrupting the Gospel, to set up that guilty Boasting, which is here condemned and excluded.—But this Matter must on the whole be submitted to others impartial Judgment. However, In the mean Time, I cannot refrain making here a short Remark on the obvious Tendency of your Opinion in the present Point, and of what you have offered in Defence of it, to check the Concern and to stifle the Convictions of awakened Sinners which you must confess of dangerous Consequence, I readily confess the Scheme you have advanced is what Flesh and Blood will not be likely to take much Offence at, but it would rather afford a pleasing Entertain­ment to the fallen Creature, and be likely to bear down and keep under his rising Fears from time to time, to sooth and hush his ac­cusing Conscience, and while in Heart really pursuing the World as his chief Good, yet to flatter him with the Hopes of his finally obtaining Heaven too; as having the Grace of God well secured to him by a conditional Promise, and brought hereby as it were within the Command of his own Endeavours and Improvements.— Allow me, Sir, to observe, 'Tis no Wonder at all therefore, if in a Time when Religion runs low among a People (as it ever will upon an awful Suspension of a special Divine Influence) Multitudes of the World go over to a Self-pleasing Opinion, and ridicule the Notion of any Danger by it. However, this we are well assured of, that [Page 63] according as the Work of God has been revived, time after time, so that the Truth at the same Time revived and prevailed; and it is remarkable, through all the Vicissitudes that have passed over the Church, this important Truth which I am now pleading for, has been preserved alive, at lead in the incontestible Grounds of it, in all the publick Confessions of the Reformed, from Age to Age; nor has the contrary Error ever to this Day, that I can learn, obtained a Place in so much as one publick Confession of Faith, avow'd in any Protestant Church. And this is our Consolation, amidst all Dangers threatning the Truth in a Day of Degeneracy, that still the Spirit of Truth has the same Power and the same Grace as ever, and will not let the Word of Truth in any Iota of it utterly fail and perish, but will secure it in the Mouth and Heart of all that are Christ's, as tot the great Matters of it especially.

And here, Sir, I might well enough conclude; relying on what has already been said, as sufficient to the Purpose of confirming Mr. Cooke's two Arguments, which I undertook to defend. But I must beg your Patience a little longer, whilst I add an Argument or two, that are of a more general Extent, and of no small Weight with me in this Controversy, and whilst I give you a few further Considera­tions on some Passages of your Letter, which hitherto I've not found a Place for.

One Argument, in particular, that I would a while insist on, is this. If any Endeavours of the Unregenerate, under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, as they are, be the Condition, to which special Grace is promis­ed, these must be supposed so, either as Doings acceptable and pleasing to God, or else as displeasing and offensive to him. (For I know of no Medium.) But, under neither of these Views of them, can these En­deavours be the Condition, to which special Grace is promised.—

1. Not under the Notion of their being acceptable and pleasing to God; because there is no Foundation in Truth for such a Notion of them.—For the Scripture most expresly assures us, Rom. 8.8. They that are in the Flesh cannot please God. By them that are in the Flesh, I understand, not meerly the obstinate relentless Sinner, but also the Man you describe, who though seriously concerned to become renew­ed in the Spirit of his Mind, yet is not throughly converted from Sin to God, such an one, not having the Spirit of Christ, still in the Flesh or under the Government of a fleshly Mind. Whatever fair Shew in the Flesh he make, yet under all his seemingly Religiousness is in Truth carnally minded: The Flesh is his predominant Principle. And indeed, Sir, as you yourself have conceded, the Man you describe [Page 64] is under the Dominion of Sin. Now such a one, says the Scripture, cannot please God.—Agreeably we are told, Heb. 11. 6. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. None, I think, can doubt of its being Faith unfeigned, such as is a believing with the Heart unto Righ­teousness, that is here intended: Nor can it be doubted whether all that are under the Dominion of Sin, are utterly destitute of this Faith; without which 'tis impossible to please God.—I might also produce here those Sayings and Reasonings of our Saviour, in Mat. 7. 17, 18. and in Chap. 12. 33, 34, 35. and in Luk. 16. 12. So Jam. 3. 12. with many other Texts might be cited, that clearly hold forth the Truth I am upon.—And I am persuaded, that the Sense I take these Scriptures in, agreeable to my Purpose, has the approving Suffrage of all Protestant Churches in their publick Confes­sions of Faith; not excepting even the Formulas of your own Church, as before observ'd. And here I could readily turn you to many Passages, full to my Design, in your Articles, and Homilies, if not your Liturgy too. But for Brevity I omit it at present.—And now, Sir, if the Reverend Compilers of your own publick Standards, with other eminent Reformers, agreed to that Construction of the sacred Text, which our Author, whom you oppose, has espoused, I pray, consider WHOM your Reflections upon him and those on his Side of the Question, are equally applicable to. Do you indeed, Sir, think that these excellent Divines all built on empty Cobwebs,—tortur'd the plainest Texts,— &c. to favour a preconceiv'd humane Scheme, not founded on the holy Scriptures, wherein it was peculiar, i.e so far as it agreed not with the Scheme of those on your Side in this Controversy!—

But I return from this Digression, and go on with the Argu­ment.—How is it possible, Sir, that the Unregenerate Man's Doings should be pleasing to God, so long as his Person, as under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, is both odious to the Divine Holi­ness, after obnoxious to revenging Justice? Or how is it possible, since he is not vitally and savingly united to Christ, and so not actually interested in the Merits of the Mediator, by whom only we have Access to the Father, that any of the Sinner's Doings should te pleasing to God? For, are we not accepted in the Beloved? And are not the very Saint's spiritual Sacrifices only acceptable to God by Jesus Christ? How then can you imagine the Unregenerate Man's Doings acceptable, while he does not come to God by the Mediator, nor has him an Advocate for him with the Father? And if you con­sider the infinite Contrariety there is between the Purity of the Di­vine Nature, and the polluted Doings of the most refin'd Creature [Page 65] under Sin's Dominion, how can you conceive it possible, that any the best Endeavours of such a Creature should be pleasing to God? How can he be supposed, in any fair Consistence with his unspotted Holi­ness, to act in Character of a moral Governor and Righteous Judge of the Behaviour of his Creature, even while answering Sinners Cries for Mercy, since their very best Devotions, as void of all true Faith and godly Sincerity, must needs appear, at the Bottom, but selfish, carnal and impure in his Sight?—Whatever Aids of the Holy Sprit such may experience, yet while under the Dominion of Sin it is impossible in the Nature of Things, that such with all the Help of Divine com­mon Grace should be able to please God in the Manner of their per­forming any Duty.—Nor can it be pleaded, that however sinful and unworthy the Performances of such are in themselves, yet God may accept them for Christ's sake. No; for, notwithstanding the Redeem­er's Merits and Purchase, there is a wife Scheme or Method provided for the Application of Redeeming Grace: and according to the Scripture-Account of this, there's such a Connection establish'd here between the Sanctification of the Spirit and the Sprinkling if the Blood of Jesus, as that the Latter never takes Place on any Soul without the Former. So that only Saints in Christ Jesus indeed have true Communion with God and Acceptance in his Sight. Nor can any under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, (which you grant to be the Case of all the Unregenerate) hope to make their Way into the Favour of God by any possible Services of theirs (whilst in that Situation) notwithstanding they may professedly implore Acceptance for Christ's Sake. Without a divine Application of Redemption in Effectual Calling, the Sinner's meer pleading its Purchase will avail nothing towards gaining the Divine Acceptance and Favour. In vain there­fore is the meer Purchase suppos'd to be the Ground of a Promise to Men's Endeavours antecedent to this equally necessary Application. I have the rather (Sir) insisted on these Things here, because many in your Scheme appear to me exceedingly confus'd in their Tho'ts upon them, without any consistent Scheme of Principles, and indeed without) any distinct Idea's at all upon these Particulars: and be­cause of the Importance of the Things in themselves, as well as their Reference to the Point [...] in Debate.

I shall only add here, that the striving Sinner, whose Right (at least conditional Right) to special Grace, passed over to him by God's Promise, you contend for, this Man (I say) is either under the Law, or under Grace; I mean, as to his secret State before God, he is now actually either in the Covenant of the first Adam, or in the Covenant of the second Adam. He can't be in Both at the same [Page 66] Time: or be of Works, and of Faith too, Now, if the former be his Case, the Scripture tells us, he is under the Curse. (Gal. 3. 10.) And how the Man that is under the Curse of the Law, or (as you grant) under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, should at the same Time have a Right to Salvation, or (which is the same Thing) to God's special Grace, by Virtue of a Promise in the Gospel Covenant, must to my weak Understanding remain a Paradox, till you can favour me with some satisfactory Solution of the Diffi­culty. And till you have done this, I hope you'l no more upbraid those on our Side with "corrupting the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel and in Effect making it a meer unintelligible Riddle"— How is it possible, Sir, that Sinners actually in a State, and under a Do­minion, condemn'd both by Law and Gospel, should be capable of pleasing God with their dead Formalities; or be made accepted in the Beloved, while they are far from presenting their Bodies a living Sacri­fice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable Service!

From all those Considerations, I think it incontestible, that there's be Probability, no Possibility of the Unregenerate Man's Endeavours in Religion (whilst his State and his governing Principle are such) Being in any sound Scriptural Sense pleasing to God.—And then, to be sure, these his Endeavours cannot consistently be pretended to be the Condition of promised special Grace, which the Blessed God in Quality of a moral Governor and righteous Judge of his Creature's Behaviour and Improvements, stands engaged by his Covenant to bestow in Reward of the Sinner's Endeavours.

But so much for the first Thing.

2. Nor am I able to conceive how it's possible, that any Doings which are displeasing and offensive to God, (as for the Principles, the Ends, and Manner of them, are the best Doings of every Unrege­nerate Man) should, especially under that Notion be the stated Condition of his obtaining special Grace, or give him a Right to it in Virtue of any Promise of God.

Surely this must to every unprejudic'd Thinker appear a deep Absurdity, or in your own Language, perfect Nonsense. Doubtless it will be granted me, there is a Divine Harmony and moral Fitness in the whole Constitution of the Gospel-Covenant, and a perfect Congruity or Suitableness to the moral Perfections of God running through his whole Administration of it. But what Shadow of Agreement between the Behaviour and Improvements of a fallen Crea­ture actually under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin, contrary to the Di­vine Nature, therefore odious in the Sight of God,—And God's making these a Condiition in the Gospel-Covenant, upon which he [Page 67] has suspended his Promise of special Grace, and which accordingly as a moral Governor and righteous Judge, he makes the Rule and Measure of his Dispensations in the present Case ? Are there not some of the most Inconsistent Ideas put together here!—Can the polluted Doings of a Creature, devoid of the Image of God and under the Power of Sin, have any Virtue in them to recommend him to God's Favour, and to make him a meet Object of his spe­cial Grace, or in your own Phrase, to qualify him for God's Help? And if not, then I pray, what is there in these Doings, to render it at all congruous, or suitable that they should be made the Con­dition in a Divine Promise, and so in Virtue of this serve to give the fallen Creature a Right to special and saving Grace! Can you pos­sibly conceive, how it should bear any Agreement with the rectoral Holiness of God, in transacting with his Creatures, to make That a Condition of his special Grace, which (though materially good, yet otterwise) in its whole moral Complexion, is infinitely disagreeable, and therefore displeasing, to the Divine Purity? What can be a more glaring Contradiction than this!

Nor will it in the least remove the Difficulty here, to say, [...]at by a special Act of meer sovereign Grace, purchased by Christ [...]ese Doings, tho' in themselves truly vile and unworthy, may for Christ's sake be appointed the Condition of special Grace, consistently enough with the Honour of the Divine Holiness.—For we are in this Case to form our Judgment of God's Acts, not upon meer Conjectures of our own Reason or Fancy, but by the infallible Revelations we find in the Oracles of God himself. Now, if we judge by this Divine Rule, it can never be made appear, that God has published any such Act of Grace, as is here supposed: This indeed is the very Fact in Question. And if no such Act of Grace be published in the Gospel of Christ, we may be sure that Christ never purchased such an one. The whole Tenor of the Gospel-Covenant, the Blessings whereof come to us in Virtue of the Redeemer's Purchase, discovers its perfect Har­mony with God's moral Perfections: and shews, that all the pur­chased Blessings are dispensed in an invariable Method of Grace, so contrived by infinite Wisdom, That God might be Just, and the Justi­fier of him which believeth in Jesus. How can it then with a due Reverence to God's Holiness and Justice, as represented to us in the Gospel, be imagined, that a Conditional Right to his special Grace should pass [...] to the fallen Creature, by Virtue of a Promise (tho' supposed to [...] sounded on the Merits of Christ) made immediately to such Doings, as really have no true Holiness in them, and are wholly destitute of that Faith unfeigned, through which we are saved [Page 68] by Grace, according to the Scripture Doctrine of the Evangelical Covenant. 'Tis by Faith we receive the Atonement: and only by thus receiving the Atonement, can we get a Right to the sure Mercies of the everlasting Covenant, or become (as you speak) ‘qualify'd for God's Help,’ in a further Supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Nor will it (as some in your Scheme argue against us) do any Ho­nour to the Mercy of God, to suppose such a Promise as you con­tend for: because his Name is Holy and True, as well as Merciful and Gracious. And in his Covenant of Mercy, and in all the Exer­cises of Covenant-Mercy, He still preserves his Truth inviolable and his Holiness perfectly unblemished. To deny a Divine Promise to any Condition, that is contrary to his Holiness and Truth, and to deny his being pleased with any Doings of a Creature under the Dominion of Sin, and which have no Degree of true moral Purity in them, is so far from lessening the Honour of Divine Mercy, that it is a Vindication of it. God's Mercy is ever a true and just and pure Mercy. His Promises of Mercy, and all his Actings upon them, never fail of being intirely consistent with and honorary to all the moral Attributes of his Nature.—And here, Sir, I would join with you (in your Pag. 20.) in "Wishing it to be more seriously consider'd, that it was the Wicked Servant (Matth. 25. 24. com­par'd with Luk. 19. 22.) who represented his Lord as an hard Man, reaping where he had never sown," &c. For I desire it may be impar­tially examined, On which Side of the Question before us there is most danger of that wicked Servant's unjust Charge against his Lord taking Place. Whether on the Side we espouse, whose Opinion in this Particular so evidently pays united Honour; to the Divine Ho­liness and Mercy, and appears so clearly justifiable from the Word of God, as well as the Nature and Reason of Things?—Or on the Side you espouse, whose Opinion is such as represents the Mercy of God in a Light so apparently inconsistent with his Holiness, and represents that Doctrine which only makes these Divine Attributes appear in their true Harmony, as if it eclipsed the Glory of God's Mercy, and exhibited Him in the fasfe and odious Character of an hard Master, i.e, like Pharaoh &c?— For do not those on your Side, and you your self, Sir, by this Accusation you have brought against us, virtually and in true Construction openly declare it your Sentiment, that in Case the Doctrine we embrace and you impugn be true, then the Glorious God must be looked upon indeed a hard Master?—Whereas we in our very Hearts abhor and detest this pretended Consequence from our Doctrine: and we attribute it, in those that frame such an Inference, to the Want of a consistent [Page 69] way of thinking in Religion, and more especially to the Want of a full and just Sense of the Sinfulness and Misery of that Estate, into which the Fall brought Mankind.

But, it may be, after all I have said to enforce the Argument in hand, some may attempt to weaken it by denying the Disjunc­tion; and pretending, That the Endeavours if the seeking striving Sinner, to which they suppose special Grace promised, are such a [...] are neither pleasing nor displeasing to God, nor consequently are under either of these Notions made conditional of its Bestowment.—

Now the Weakness of such a Pretence will easily appear, if we consider, that it is in the Nature of Things impossible, the Doings of a moral Agent, in a moral Case, and considered as such by a mo­ral Governor and righteous Judge, should be neither good nor evil, and so neither pleasing nor displeasing to Him.—The Lord weigheth Actions, and loveth Righteousness, but hateth Iniquity. And considering fallen Man as still a Subject of moral Government under a Law to God, and obliged by natural Bonds as a Creature to glorify Him in Body and Spirit, which are His; how is it possible, that any of his voluntary Actions should be totally indifferent, so as not to carry in them moral Godness, nor yet moral Evil. Such an ab­solute Neutrality is what this Case will never admit of. And now according as they are truly Works of Righteousness, or not, so does God as a moral Governor and Judge either approve, or else disap­prove them.—The Disjunction then in the Case before us must forever stand: and the Pretence of any Doings, prescribbed as Conditions to a moral Agent, being neither good nor evil, neither pleasing nor displeasing to a moral Governor, must be discarded as a vain and idle Pretence.—Admitting it were a possible Case, that the Doings of a moral Agent, acting as such, might be perfectly indifferent in themselves, yet if we suppose them by a moral Governor made the Conditions of a promised Benefit, they must in this View lose their Indifferency; and being looked on as good, will consequently be amiable and pleasing in his Sight.—However, if the Doings of the Unregenerate Man be indeed, (according to the Objection) nei­ther pleasing nor yet displeasing to God, then surely they must stand for meer Cyphers, moral Nullities, in God's Account: and it must discover too little Reverence of the only wise God, to suppose Him, as a moral Governor, in a Covenant-Transaction with his fallen Creature making a very Thing of Nought the Condition of his pro­mised Grace, and the Rule of his Administration as a righteous Judge of the Behaviour of moral Agents.—Can such Doings, as morally are Nothing, be suppos'd a fit Consideration for the Majesty of Heaven [Page 70] to act upon, in dispensing his saving Mercies! Such Doings as are upon this Hypothesis indeed but empty Cobwebs, can you suppose it consistent with Wisdom, that these should be (what those in your Scheme make the Unregenerate Man's Doings) the Consideration which God respects in dispensing his Grace, the immediate Basis of the Application of Redemption, the Ground of Effectual Calling and so of actual Salvation! Has such a pretended Condition any Meetness to be, as it is made, the grand Hinge, on which a saving Interest in the Redeemer turns, and on which the Promise of spe­cial Grace is suspended!—Yet I must needs say, as absurd as the Supposition is, which we are upon, is seems less dishonourable to God, than either of those in the Disjunction, which it is brought to confute. For, to suppose the Unregenerate Man's Doings, though not morally good, yet pleasing to God, and in this View made the Condition of his Promise in the Case before us; or to suppose them, although displeasing to God, as being morally not good, yet however made conditional of the Bestowment of his spe­cial Grace; either of these appears rather worse, I think, than to suppose a perfect Neutrality here, and that they are under neither of these Views made the Condition, in a free Promise and sovereign Act of Grace. Nevertheless, all these Suppositions are really absurd, and reflect on the moral Perfections of God, that none of them are to be admitted. And whatever View these Works ante­cedent to Conversion are considered in, they can no ways with any Suitableness to the Nature of Things, or to the revealed Scheme of Salvation, have this Conditional Form put upon them: and I believe, an Appeal might safely be made here to the Judg­ment of the Generality, at least of the most experienced Christi­ans and Divines.

Here, Sir, I must seriously profess my self intirely at a Loss how to reconcile the Scheme you are upon, either with the Humility of saving Faith, or indeed with the foregoing Humiliation, proper to the Case of an awakened seeking Sinner, that is to say, if the Principles of your Letter are thoroughly received, consciously acted upon, and fully pursued in all their practical Consequences. I must ask Leave, Sir, to observe to you, that it can be but of very little Avail for our Conviction, when you tell us in solemn Manner (P [...]s [...]ser. Pag. 29.) "That you aim not at undermining any of the Soul-humbling Doctrines of the Gospel. No,—God forbid. I firmly believe it (say you) to be the great Design of the Gospel, to humble the Souls of Men" &c.—But, Sir, what signifies this Profession, so long as you espouse and promote Opinions, that run quite counter to it? [Page 71] Indeed, Sir, I cannot see how to reconcile your Postscript with the Body of your Letter, in this Point. You say, You don't aim at un­dermining the humbling Doctrines of the Gospel: and yet it is the main Design and Drift of your whole Letter to undermine that Doc­trine touching God's Sovereignty in Conversion, which only is cal­culated for the End of effectually humbling the lost Sinner; and you set your self to support that Doctrine of a Promise of spe­cial Grace, to the Unregenerate, on Condition of their own Endea­vours, which so strongly tends to slatter the Pride of the fallen Creature, and to countenance that Boasting which the Gospel for ever excludes. You seem loath to speak out plainly the whole Truth concerning the Guilt, Pollution and Wretchedness of the Sinner's natural State; you appear loath, that fallen Man should be represented in such improve­rish'd and distress'd Circumstances, as to be oblig'd to come (Form Pauperis) in the humble Posture ard Spirit of a Beggar, to sue for divine Alms, without Money and without Price; but you would bolster him up with the Notion of a Right, at least a conditional Right, passed over to him by a divine Premise, made to his Cries and Endeavours, and securing to him Success; and not leaving the sovereign God at absolute Liberty, either to give or to with-hold as he pleaseth. Nay, upon a Supposition that God hath reserv'd such a Liberty to himself, and not bound himself by express Promise, to dispense his Grace to the Rebel-Creature, upon Condition of his own Endeavours, you insinuate as if in that case God would act like a hard Master, &c. even notwithstanding all the condescending Invitations and gracious Encouragements which the Gospel abounds with, to the returning Sinner.—Now, surely if this be the Spirit of your Letter, I must needs say, it looks so very much like aim­ing to undermine the Soul humbling Doctrines of the Gospel, that I should have verily thought you had really aim'd at this, if you had not professed otherwise. And if others judge your solemn Declara­tion of sufficient Force to remove that Imputation, I must leave it: Only I will here remind you of Bp. Hopkins's Censure upon your Scheme, viz. That to suppose Grace given according to Works is the Sum and Upshot of Pelagianism.

And indeed, Sir, whether you saw the full Force and Meaning of your own Language, or not, tell me what less than the compleat Ex­tent of Pelagianism in the Point of Original Sin, can in any fair Con­struction be made of those Passages in your Letter (Pag. 6, 7, 8) where you say, ‘Indeed I cannot think it consistent with the Divine Attributes—to give Being to any of his Intelligent Creatures’ [here you don't so much as except the Race of fallen Adam] ‘without [Page 72] putting them into a Condition, that (every thing being considered in the whole of their Nature and Duration (would render Being desirable to them, &c.—But every Thing beyond what is just sufficient to ren­der Being desirable even to a perfect Creature, however so obedient, I take to be Matter of meer sovereign Goodness.’—Which Paragraph you shut up with this Observation with reference to Man, that "be shall not be accountable for what he never receiv'd," &c. where, I suppose from the Current of your Discourse, you mean never receivd personally. Now, Sir, if this be your Opinion, that Mankind are accountable only for what they (themselves, personally) [...] then it seems, what human Nature once receiv'd an [...] again in A­dam, our first Father and common Head, is totally excluded the Ac­count; and we are no longer to believe with the Apostle, That the Judgment was by One (the Offence of one Man) to Condemnation, or that in Adam all die.—If it be your Opinion, with respect to the Offspring of Adam, That God's Perfections (as you express it) oblige him, in giving them Being, to put them into a Condition, that is in the whole better than [...] t [...]be, or that (every thing consider'd in the whole of their Nature, &c.) would render Being desirable to them, and by no Means to put them into a worse Condition, but in Case of their own [i.e. personal] wilful Disobedi­ence; And if it be your Opinion at the same Time, That it is as much is God is oblig'd from his Perfections, to do for perfect and in­nocent Creatures, to put them into this Condition, which implies No­thing more than what is just sufficient to render Being desirable to them; every Thing beyond this, being the Result of sovereign Good­ness, i.e. unoblig'd free Favour: I say, Sir, if these be your real Sentiments, then I think, it must be your Opinion, upon the whole, That God's Perfections oblige him to treat innocent Adam and his Posterity ALIKE, with Respect to the Condition, which, in giving them Being, his Attributes did and still do oblige him to put them into. Nor, according to those your Principles, is he oblig'd, when giving Being to my pure and perfect Creature whatever, to put him into a Condition at all more desirable, than that which (according to you) he is oblig'd by his Perfections to put fallen Man into, when bringing him into Being. For all that exceeds what is just sufficient to render Being desirable, is more than his Perfections oblige him to, even in that Case, and must spring from meer arbitrary Kindness. And sure­ly you claim as much on the behalf, of Adam's Descendants. Is this, Sir, the Scheme you are upon! If so, then I think, it follows, 'tis your Opinion, That Adam's Offspring are born pure and innocent Crea­tures. For a State of Sin and spiritual Death is, I think, a worse Condition, than that of not-being: unless a Remedy and Deliverance [Page 73] suppos'd provided in that Case. But did God's Perfections oblige him to make this Provision in our Case? Might he not, consistently with the Honour of his Goodness, have glorify'd his Justice, without a Remedy in the Case of fallen Men, even as in that of fallen Angels? Was it not therefore an Act of sovereign Godness in Him to provide a Saviour, to raise up a second Adam when we were ruin'd in the First? Yet without doing this for us, will you say, that God was oblig'd, in giving us Being, to put us in [...] Condition exempt from the Guilt and Pollution of Original [...]. Or will you chose now to subscribe to the Doctrine of Original Sin, and further (to be consistent with the Principles you have advanced) say, that to be born in a State, of Sin and Misery, is to have Being given us in a Condition latter, than not to be at all, even though a Redeemer had act been provided, but especially since God has in Fact rais'd up a Horn of Salvation for us? In short, Sir, be but consistent, and you must either deny toe Doctrine of Original Sin, which will be indeed to undermine a Soul-humbling Doctrine of the Gospel: or else, confessing Doctrine, you must d [...]y and renounce the main Principles defended in your Letter, and learn to look on poor fallen Man as having in his native Condition no other Refuge but sovereign Goodness, free Grace and Mercy in Christ, not in the [...]st secured by any conditional Promise made to the Sinner's own impotent and polluted Doings in his unregenerate State.

Sir, to return to the main Point immediately m Debate between us, I would propose to you two Inquiries. (1.) Does not the Right to special Grace, which you plead for, as by a Divine Pro­mise passed over to the striving Sinner, does not this (I say) neces­sarily imply an actual Agreement or Reconciliation between an offend­ed God and his Rebel-Creature? Does it not evidently suppose, that the Lord is actually become this Man's reconciled Covenant-God, and oblig'd by his Justice and Veracity to bless him with all spiritual Blessings?—For it would be absurd, to assert a Right on the Sinner's part, with an Obligation on God's part, both by Virtue of a Promise of Grace, and yet at the same time to suppose no Agreement or Peace at all between the Parties?—And then (2.) I ask, whether it be possible, that there should be this Reconcili­ation or Agreement between these extream Opposites in Nature (i. e. whilst remaining such) a God of infinite Holiness, and a Creature under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin? Please, Sir, to turn to those Divine Declarations to the Purpose, in 2 Cor. 6 14, 15. and I Job. 1. 6. Compar'd with Amos 3. 3. When you have maturely consider'd these two Inquiries please to give me the Result of [Page 74] your Thoughts, and it may contribute to an easy Issue of this Debate.

I beg Leave, Sir, before I finish, to offer some Hints on a Text, you have press'd into your Service, which has hitherto escaped my Notice. In the Advertisement before your Letter you allude to this Passage, in Philip. 2. 12, 13. Work out your own Salvation with Fear and Trembling: for it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good Pleasure. It were in effect charging yon with Impertinence, not to suppose that you under­stood these Words as importing a Promise of special Grace, made to the Endeavours of Unregenerate Men under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin. Yet indeed there is not the least Colour for such a Construction of the Words, neither from the Text not Con­text. There is a total Silence here, as to the Case of an Unrege­nerate Man.—So there is with regard to the Sinner's working be­ing, conditional of God's working. Nay, the Contrary appears, in as much as God's working is here considered as prior to Man's working, and (as such) urged as a Motive to it.—Neither is there any Mention made here of converting Grace, nor must we neces­sarily conceive first Grace to be intended here by the Salvation spoken of: but it may as properly mean progressive Salvation here, and compleat Salvation hereafter: in which Views the Word is often used, and is so in this Epistle. (Chap. 1. 19, 28.)—Nor is the Fear and Trembling, here mentioned, such as is common to the Unregenerate, but may as well, and doubtless doth, intend a filial Reverence and godly Fear, peculiar to true Christians. — And the Exhortation here is expresly directed to those whom the Apostle calls his Beloved, and of whom he says they had always obeyed. A sure Sign, he did not here address such as he supposed to be Un­regenerate.—And the Argument he uses to enforce it, is, For it is God that worketh in you, &c. Which runs not directly in the Form of a Promise, but seems only a Declaration of Fact: q. d. It is the Design of God's working in you, as he has done, and the proper Improve­ment you should make of Grace received, is, to put you upon Endeavours after progressive Sanctification, and taking Pains for the Furtherance of your Salvation.—Yet the Words may implicitly couch in them a Promise, but it is to Saints in Christ Jesus.—Nor would I be un­derstood here to deny, that this Text may several Ways be adapted and apply'd for Excitation and Encouragement to the seeking stri­ving Sinner, and especially for the promoting his Humiliation, by a Conviction of his own spiritual Impotence, and the Sovereignty [Page 75] of God in the Operations of efficacious Grace, &c However, Sir, this is no Help to your Argument.

I shall now take a brief Notice of what you have advanced in your Letter (Pag. 3.) where you tell us, ‘Nothing can so effect­tually tend to cut the Sinews of all Endeavours to repent,—as even the most distant Surmise, that possibly all our Labour may be in vain.’—This, Sir, is to my best Understanding one of the most palpable Mistakes. And if applied to any important Business in humane Life, will be found contrary to plain Fact, in our daily Experience and Observation. Doth not the Husbandman plow in Hope, without the least Certainty of Success? Doth not the Mariner sail in dangerous Sea­sons of the Year, and in Times of War? Doth not the Merchant ad­venture his Substance across the Sea to foreign Countries, even when Sailing is dangerous? And do these Men act without any the most distant Surmise of the Possibility of Disappointments in their Affairs? Or in Case of Sickness, won't Men send for the Physi­cian and use many Medicines, notwithstanding apparent Hazard of never recovering? How unjustifiabie then must be the Conduct of Sinners, if in a Case of infinitely greater Importance, and of eternal Consequence, they suffer any distant Surmise of all their La­bours being in vain, to cut the Sinews of their Endeavours! Ought they not in this most momentous Case, if they would shew them­selves Men and consistent Agents, to act upon like Encouragement, as in Matters of inferior Concernment? It being a Case, in which any the least Probability, yea, a bare Possibility of Success is infinite­ly more valuable, than in any other Case imaginable; and a Case, where Necessity calls aloud for their most ardent Desires, their most incessant Strivings to enter in at the strait Gate, their utmost Pains in pressing into the Kingdom of God.— Was the Man-slayer under the Law sure of Success, and yet was he not wont to free with all his Might to the City of Refuge? And should not the awak­ened Sinner, though wuhout a Promise of certain Success, yet upon the Encouragement of a Probability, or even a meer Possi­bility, flee for Refuge to lay Hold on the Hope set before Him?—Did not the Ninevites act meerly upon the Encouragement of a Who can tell if God will return!—And the Israelites, were they not Stimulated by an uncertain Hope, saying, Who knoweth if God will repent, and leave a Blessing behind him!—Once more, when an inspired Apostle had an hypocritical Professor of the Gospel in Dealing, I mean Simon, whom he perceived to be in the Gall of Bitterness and Bond of Iniquity, with what Encour­agement doth he enforce his Exhortation to him to repent, and pray to God? Doth he tell him of a Promise, and urge his Endeavours [Page 76] as conditions, in the Manner that you do? No, Sir, but he puts all to the Risque; he mentions but a Per [...]e.—Pray God, if perhaps He may forgive thee.— This Perhaps, as here used, imports indeed only a Suspicion of the Truth of the Man's Repentance, and not any Doubt of God's Forgiveness in Case his Repentance were sincere.—Note, Sir, We have here a plain Scripture Exam­ple of a Professor still Unregenerate, and under the Dominion and Guilt of Sin; and of the Encouragement, which the Gospel gives to such an one, when awakened, to cry to God for Mercy. The Apostle only mentions a Perhaps; and never lisp to him the most distant Surmise of a Promise to secure certain Success. Now in this, will you say of in Inspired Apostle, that he took the ready Method to cut the Sin [...] of Simon's Endeavours to repent!—I hope surely, in this Case you will say No — What then is the Divinity you teach, in this Particular! Is it not too near akin to that vain Philosophy, you so loudly exclaim against? Or, is not the Language of your Objection in this Case, too agreeable to that of the s [...]ful Man, who in Excuse of his Aversion to taking any Pains without Certainty of Success, says on every Occasion, There is e Lion in the Way!

But, Sir, however those on your Side of the Question may un­dervalue any Gospel-Encouragement, short of a Promise ascertain­ing the Success of a Sinner's Endeavours; Yet we on the other hand are constrained, in the View of the glorious Encourage­ments of the Gospel (though from meer Sovereign Mercy, un­promised to any Endeavours of the Unregenerate) to admire the Wisdom of God in the Constitution of the Covenant of Grace, so adapted to the Design of exalting his own Sovereignty, and securing the Honours of his Mercy and Holiness together, and so adapted to promote at the same Time both the Humiliation and the Encouragement of the fallen Creature: Equally calculated to awaken the Sinner's Fear of God's Wrath, and to support a Hope in his Mercy, so, to guard him against the Dangers of Security, Presumption, and Delay, on the one hand, and on the other against all Temptations to Despair and Dejection.

Thus, Sir, I have finished what I proposed on this Occasion.—I am conscious of much Infirmity, and ask your Candour. I think, I can say uprightly, I have not committed any wilful Mistakes: but have wrote in the Fear of God, the very Sense of my Heart, according to my best Light.

On the whole, I would just make the one Remark, and be it remember'd: Though I deny any Pormise, by virtue of which [Page 77] the special Grace of God can possibly become due to the Prayers and Endeavours of the Unregenerate, whilst such; Yet however, in I am perswaded, that it is the Duty of Sinners to be seeking and striving after it; and that not a single Instance will be found of any Sinner in the Day of Judgment able to stand forth, and plead in Truth, Lord, I did my best Endeavour to the very last, that I might obtain the Salvation which is by Jesus Christ, and looked diligently lest I should fall of the Grace of God but after all was deny'd— To be perswa­ded of this Fact on the Score of the Riches of God's Mercy, and yet at the same Time to renounce all Pretence of a Promise to the Sinner's Endeavours, appear to me Things very well consistent. Though, guided by the Word, I limit the Promises of God to the Believer: Yet far be it from me, to entertain a Thought of limiting Him in his unpromised Mercy towards Sinners, whi [...]h knows no other Bounds, in this, or any other Case, consistent with his moral Perfections, but the meer good Pleasure of his Will.

May the Spirit of Truth leads us into all Truth; and may the Spirit of Grace make all Grace to abound towards us and in as!