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.]

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,

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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 (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 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 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 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 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.— 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 •• 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 〈◊〉 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 as conditions, in the Manner that you do? No, Sir, but he puts all to the Riſque; he mentions but a Per 〈8 letters〉 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 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!