THE free and rich Grace of GOD, display'd in Man's Salvation by Jesus Christ, is a Theme of the highest Importance; and 'tis a delight­ful Theme to true Christians, being sensible that all their Comfort and Happiness is center'd here. And when human Schemes are advanced, that tend to the depreciating of this, such cannot but be affected with deep Concern. Now, is it not evident, that several Pieces, of this unhappy Tendency, have of late Years been publish'd in the Country? And particularly, is not this the plain Scope of a Sermon, lately publish'd by the Rev. Mr. L. BRIANT, from Isai. lxiv.6? Is it not the whole Drift of his Discourse, to run down and decry this Grace, at least in the Sense hitherto generally receiv'd among us, as a "Libertine Notion," as "vilifying human Nature, affronting human Reason, and corrupt­ing Christianity,"— "turning the pure and perfect Reli­gion of Jesus into an idle Speculation, a mysterious Faith, a senseless Superstition, and a groundless Recumbency"!

[Page 30]Indeed when he comes to defend his Sermon, he wou'd make some Appearance of owning the Doctrine of Grace, in these Words. [REM. p. 28.] ‘I assure you, I always preach up (what I firmly believe) that the Grace of God is the original Spring of all his Crea­tures Happiness, and that there is no such Thing as buying, purchasing or meriting this Grace at his Hands: But that 'tis Free and Rich Grace. By Free I mean, 'tis the essential Disposition of the Deity to be good: By Rich I mean, the same with the sacred Writer, that he is good to All, and that his tender Mercies are over All his Works.’ —But what a lame Confession of Faith, and what a miserable Account of his Preaching is here! Do's Mr. Briant believe and preach no other Grace of God, but that which is "the Spring of the Happiness of All his Creatures;" and so is common to Angels, Men, and Bruits? Do's he make no Distinction between Providential Grace towards all the Creatures, and Redeeming Grace towards perishing Sinners? And do's he verily believe and preach, that "there is no such Thing [What! absolutely, no such Thing at all] as Buying, Purchasing or Meriting this Grace at the Hands of God;" but that 'tis "Unbought Grace?" as he terms it, in absolute Language, without any Guard or Limitation. [REM. p. 18.] Surely, Mr. Briant's Expressions in both Places are very incautious if he holds the Doctrine of CHRIST'S Atonement, in any Sense but the Socinian; which resolves it into meer Me­taphor, and confesses no proper Satisfaction, or Purchase of Redemption at the Hands of Divine Justice, but as­cribes Salvation simply to the Grace of God; that Grace, Mr. Briant says, he preaches up and firmly believes; which is "the Spring of the Happiness of all the Crea­tures" in common; which is "Free", in that 'tis the "essential Disposition of the Deity to be good", and which is "Rich," in that it is so extensive, even "over all the Works of his Hands." — But what Confusion and Error is here▪

[Page 31]That Goodness is an essential Attribute of God, 'tis readily acknowledg'd: but then it must be own'd, Ius­tice is so too. And is it not as much the essential Dis­position of the Deity to be just, as to be good? Therefore God hath sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins, to the End that he might be Iust, and yet the Iustifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Wou'd it not have been unspotted Iustice in God, had he punish'd fallen Man with everlasting Destruction, without a Remedy? Wou'd he not have remain'd essentially good, had he never been communicatively so, at least, in respect of Salvation to any of his Rebel-Creatures? After the Apostacy, was not God at Liberty to suspend the Exercise of his Goodness toward us, unless an Atonement were made to his offend­ed Justice? His Grace therefore eminently appears in his Kindness to us by Iesus Christ; as he hath set him forth to be a Propitiation for Sin, thro' Faith in his Blood. And the Distinction in this Regard between the Case of Men and Devils, puts an admirable Lustre on redeem­ing Grace; making it appear gloriously free. In the common Acceptation of the Word, Grace connotes the Unworthiness of the Object, and the Condescension of Di­vine Love: the Addition of the Epithet, Free, seems to heighten the Sense, and may particularly denote God's sovereign Liberty in chusing the Objects of his Fa­vour. Agreeably by this Phrase, the free Grace of God, Divines truly Calvinistical understand his special Love and Favour, thro' Jesus Christ, terminated on Creatures altogether unlovely, and selecting some such for its Objects, while passing by others in the same Condition: accord­ing to that of our Saviour, Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy Sight. (Matth. xi.26)—But does Mr. BRIANT own the Freeness of Divine Grace in this Sense? No; he expresly disclaims it. SER. p. 7, 8.

And then as to his Construction of the other Epithet, Rich, what a wrong Idea does it convey? The Text that he quotes, Psal. cxlv.9. The Lord is good to all, &c. is nothing to the Purpose for which he alledges it: It does not hold forth to us (as he insinuates) that there [Page 32] is an universal Grace given to Mankind, by the Improve­ment of which they may all certainly attain Salvation: But it refers only to common and outward Favours, of which All (both Saints and Sinners, yea and the very Bruits) partake while in this World. (See v. 15, 16.) And it is parallel with those Texts, Matth. v.45. He maketh his Sun to rise on the Evil and on the Good, &c. And Luk. vi.35. He is kind to the Unthankful, and to the Evil.—This Notion of universal Grace, i. e. that there is sufficient Grace given to all, both Heathens and profess'd Christians, for their Conversion and Salvation (which Mr. Briant must mean, if he means any Thing to the Purpose) is utterly inconsistent with the Principles of Calvinism, and is one of the prime Doctrines of Armini­us. —None of the Calvinists suppose, that the Richness of Divine Grace consists in the Universality of it's Extent; but in the unsearchable Treasure of Benefits it commu­nicates, and in the infinite Expence it was at for the Purchase of them by Christ's precious Blood, as well as in it's Triumphs over infinite Demerits, and in the vast Mul­titude of it's chosen Objects, who being all undeserving, might justly have been left (as well as the fallen Angels, and many of their Fellow-Men) to perish eternally in their Wickedness. If this Grace were not special, but all Men were sharers in it indifferently, it would not ap­pear so wonderful in our Eyes, and so precious, as it now does: even as worldly Riches, if common to all, would not appear of such Value, as when in the Hands of a select Number of Men.

But if Grace universal and sufficient be given without Distinction, why then are not all converted? The Ar­minians answer, because some co-operate with this Grace, and others not; some duly improve what is given them, and so (pursuant to Promise) receive more; while others reject it, and perish. — So that (according to them) it is in the Power of their own Wills, whether this Grace shall succeed, or not; and the true Reason, why Peter was converted, and not Iudas, was not because of the Predominancy of Grace, but because the one by his own [Page 33] Will made the Grace of GOD effectual; whereas the other, for want of the like Improvement of his Free-Will, was lost. — But is this Doctrine of the Universalists, the Doctrine of the Bible? I trow not. What says our Lord Jesus Christ? Matth. xi.25, 26. Thou hast hid these Things from the Wise and Prudent, and hast revealed them unto Babes, &c. So, Chap. xiii.11. It is given unto you to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given.— What says St. Paul? Rom. ix.18. Therefore hath he Mercy, on whom he will have Mercy. So, 1 Cor. iv.7. Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou, that thou didst not receive?

But I need not insist here, 'till Mr. BRIANT be so honest as to own more explicitly, that he is Arminian in this, as well as other Points; it being a main Part of my Design in this APPENDIX, rather to unmask Errors, than to refute them, (which it will be Time eno' to do, when they are more openly and formally acknowledg­ed, and when defended by Arguments, instead of Banter and Harangue.) And this I am led to by Mr. Briant's loud Complaints of the Attestators to Mr. Porter's Sermon, for fixing the Charge of Arminianism upon him (with others;) which he says, is founded "only upon his Interpretation of one single Text," without any other Foundation — If this be so, we may have wronged him in our Attestation:— But if I mistake not, it can easily be made appear, upon a strict Examination of his Ser­mon and Letter, that they are both inconsistent with the commonly received Doctrines, called Calvinistical; and that (notwithstanding his Subterfuges and sly Turns in his Friendly Remarks, by which he tho't, perhaps to impose upon weak Minds) he will finally turn out a rank Arminian, at best.

I know indeed, that Men of his Cast are not willing to own the Name, (because at present it is a Name of Reproach in the Country) and some of them have the Face expresly to deny it: — But what do they mean by such Denial? — Why, either (1.) That they don't hold exactly with Arminius in every Point: Or, (2.) That [Page 34] they do not make Arminius the Master of their Faith; that they do not hold such Doctrines as they are Armi­nius's, but as they are the Doctrines of the Bible, as they apprehend. — As to the first Pretence, tho' they don't hold exactly with Arminius in every Point, yet in as much as they do in the main Points, they may be justly stiled Arminians; and they had better be contented with this Name, if they would not have a worse; for they ge­nerally go further from the Truth, than even Arminius did, & their Difference from him is on the wrong Hand.— As to the second; Who ever called them Arminians in that Sense, that they make Arminius the Lord of their Faith? — Is it not plain, that all we intend by this Name, is, that they hold the same Doctrines, in Sum and Sub­stance, that Arminius did; who was the great Instrument of reviving the Semi-Pelagian Errors, in the Protestant World? — Is it not then evident Tricking and Collusion, to deny themselves to be Arminians upon this Ground?— And is it not as trickish and disingenuous, to be perpe­tually throwing it in the Teeth of those Divines called Calvinistical, that they make Calvin the Master of their Faith; that they ‘enslave their Minds and the Minds of the People to human Schemes and Authorities;’ that they teach them to ‘substitute the Writings of weak fallible Men, in the Room of Christ and his Gos­pel, &c.’ (p. 27, 28. REM.) Whereas they know, that there is not a Calvinist upon Earth in this Sense. — Can't we look upon Calvin as an eminent Man of GOD, and the Doctrines he taught as agreable to the Scriptures, without being stigmatiz'd as setting him up in the Room of Christ! — Can't we receive a Confession of Faith, tho' drawn up by fallible Men, as a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Bible, without enslaving our Minds to human Schemes? — And can't we (for the Direction of our own Conduct) ask others, whether they are agreed with us in this, without enslaving them also? — For my Part, I am but little acquainted with the Writings of Calvin: But yet I am willing to be called a Calvinist, that others may know what Scheme of Principles I hold [Page 35] to be founded upon the Word of GOD; and don't de­sire (as the Manner of some is) to muffle my self up in Shade and Obscurity, in general Terms, and ambiguous Expressions, as if ashamed of my Principles; which Con­duct, in whomsoever it's found, I look upon as a dark Sign, agreable to 2 Pet. 2.1.

But to come more directly to what I aim at: — As one of the Attestators, I think there are two Things especially incumbent upon me.

I. To see more particularly what Grounds there are to fix the Charge of Arminianism upon Mr. Briant. And,

II. To take some Notice of his Remarks upon the Word, Our, in his Text.

I. I shall mention some Things in Support of the Charge of Arminianism bro't against him.

When I first perused Mr. Briant's Sermon, whatever my Opinion might be of his Orthodoxy, I tho't him honest, and open enough in declaring his own Principles, (tho' I should have been glad, if he had been as honest in re­presenting the Principles of his Opponents:) And by the Conclusion of his Sermon one would have tho't, that no­thing would make him flinch from what he had so plainly deliver'd as the Truth. "I am sensible (says he) that this Sort of Preaching is not calculated for the gene­ral Taste of the present Age: — It may not at present be the Way to popular Applause, or to priestly Favours: — However if it be the Way of Truth, tho' the asserting of it should expose a Man to Poverty and Contempt, and all Manner of temporal Inconveniencies, a stedfast Faith and inflexible Virtue will readily reply,— None of these Things move me, neither count I my Life dear to me," &c. (And to the same Purpose he speaks, p. 6.) Here seems to be the most magnanimous Resolution, fixedly to ad­here to the Scheme of Doctrine, that he had advanced, let Death, or what would, be the Consequence: But in­stead of abiding constant in the Day of Trial, how soon does he turn his Back (what the Principle or Motive was, his Conscience knows best!) and in his Reply to Mr. Porter, would fain perswade the World to believe, "that [Page 36] there is no Controversy between them, but only as to the Sense and Design of one single Passage, in the Book of Isaiah;" and that "what follows in Mr. Porter's Sermon could not with the least Colour of Reason be apply'd to any Thing he had deliver'd." —In short, in his "sly and covert Way," he would insinuate into "vulgar Minds," that he is more Calvinistical, than even Mr. Porter himself; tho' yet he can't help bewraying himself every now and then, as appears by his Descrip­tion of free and rich Grace (of which I have spoken be­fore,) and by other Strokes, which I may perhaps take Notice of by and by.

But the Sermon I am to begin with; and the Grounds or Reasons why we charg'd him with Arminianism in this, are such as these.

I. The Arminians deny the Doctrines of personal and unconditional Election, of original Sin, of free and irre­sistable (or efficacious) Grace, and of the final Perseve­rance of the Saints:— And does not Mr. Briant do the same, in his Sermon, p. 7, 8?— After he had profess'd himself to be Orthodox in one Point at least; namely, that the Scriptures are the only Rule, he immediately falls foul upon these Doctrines, representing them in hideous Colours, and dispatching them all at a Blow.— He again vilifies and burlesques the Doctrine of original Sin. p. 24. And likewise that of Perseverance. p. 25, 26.

II. The Arminians are ever charging it upon the Calvinists, that their Doctrines tend to Licentiousness, and that there is no Necessity, upon their Scheme, of in­herent Holiness. — And does not Mr. Briant herein follow them, in his Sermon, p. 8, 9, 25, 26. And even in his Remarks, in the Title-Page, by quoting that Text, Turning the Grace of GOD into Lasciviousness, as appli­cable to Mr. Porter and those like minded?—

III. The Arminians laugh at the Calvinists for laying such Stress on Faith in Christ, calling it a mysterious Faith, a groundless Recumbency, an idle Speculation, &c. as all know that are conversant with their Writings.— And so does Mr. Briant. p. 7, 8.

[Page 37]IV. The Arminians deny the Doctrine of free Justi­fication by the imputed Righteousness of Christ, ex­clusive of all Works: ^† And does not Mr. Briant do the same? Does not he chiefly level his Artillery (such as it is) against this Doctrine; other Things coming in as it were incidentally! — And isn't he himself conscious of this, when he acknowleges that he is opposing ‘a great Part of the Christian World.’ p. 19. That he goes against "the general Taste of the present Age"; and that ‘this Sort of Preaching is not the Way to popular Applause or priestly Favours▪’ p. 30. And intimates some considerable Hazard in it, which by ‘a stedfast Faith and inflexible Virtue,’ he hoped to o­vercome p. 31. — And is all this Cry grounded upon ‘nothing but his putting a different Construction upon one single Text,’ while he fully agrees with the Calvi­nists in the great Point of Justification as sufficiently estab­lished from other Texts? — I can't have so mean an Opinion of his Understanding, as to think he meant so; but what then must he mean, unless what he is charged with above, which was sufficient indeed to put him into a Pannick?

I would observe further in Support of this Charge▪

1. That he applies several Scripture-Phrases, which by Calvinists are generally understood of the Righteous­ness of Christ, to the personal Righteousness of Men; such as the best Robe, the Wedding-Garment; the fine Lin­nen clean and white; and plainly signifies that this is all that is meant by them. p. 15, 16.— Query, Does Calvin agree with him in this?— Let him look and see.— And further, Can he have the Face to say, that all the Con­troversy between him and Mr. Porter, and his Attestators, is about one single Text; especially since Mr. Porter ▪ mentions these Texts, and puts a direct contrary Inter­pretation [Page 38] upon them? — And then again, if he owns the (active and passive) Righteousness of Christ to be the sole Matter of our Justification, how comes it about, that he applies these Scripture-Phrases solely to personal Righ­teousness, when (upon Supposition of the Truth of that Doctrine) they most naturally refer to imputed Righte­ousness?

2. Let any One read his Sermon attentively, and he will see "without inward Illumination", that the whole Run of it is to prove, that the Condition of our Accep­tance with GOD (or in other Words, of our Justifica­tion) is the personal Righteousness of Men.— Hence these Passages, as a Samplar: — "The pure Religion of Iesus suspends our whole Happiness upon our personal good Behaviour", &c. p. 7.— "'Tis the Condition of our final Happiness". p. 10, 28.— It "renders the Saints amiable in GOD's Sight, and is the Condition of all his Favours to them". p. 20.— "Our Forgiveness of Sins and final Acceptance with the Father through the Merits of the Son is upon the CONDITION of Faith, Repentance and good Living". p. 29.— "Those who de­cry moral Vertue — as a Thing of no Avail towards ob­taining the divine Favour, — do in Effect subvert the very fundamental Principles of natural and revealed Re­ligion" p. 30.— And to the same Purpose he speaks (or rather the precious Minister of Christ, as he styles him, whom he quotes with Approbation) in his Remarks. p. 30. "This always was the Condition of our Acceptance with GOD, to endeavour to be like GOD in Purity and Ho­liness, &c. to cease to do evil, and learn to do well". — If this be not to set up the personal Righteousness of Men in the Room of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ, I know not what is. Nor do's he mention imputed Righ­teousness, but with a Sneer. (Serm. p. 8, 21.)

But hold, says Mr. Briant, you mistake me; I have nothing in View thro' out my whole Discourse, but to rescue the Text in Isaiah from the Abuse that some put upon it, and meddle nothing with other controverted Points in Divinity that Mr. Porter treats upon.— But is [Page 39] not this a plain Imposition upon the Understandings of Men? Can any one read what I have just quoted from him, or turn to the Places in the Sermon refer'd to, and be of this Mind? — Besides, is it not evident from his Introduction and other Parts of his Discourse, that 'tis the Doctrine commonly grounded upon the Text, rather than the Mistake of some in the Interpretation of it, that he chiefly assaults?—If the Calvinistical Doctrine of imputed Righteousness were true, the Words of the Pro­phet might be applied (at least allusively) to the best Righteousness of Men, considered in the Affair of Justi­fication, tho' not in an absolute Sense: But instead of granting this, he utterly denies, all along in his Discourse, that the Righteousness of good Men may in any Sense be called filthy Rags: — Yea, instead of proving his Point by a critical Analysis upon the Context (as he should have done, if all his Design had been to have clear'd up the Sense of the Text, and not to have meddled with the Doctrine that some graft upon it) he endeavours to show from Reason and common Sense (as well as from Revelation) that 'tis absurd and blasphemous to affix this Epithet to personal Righteousness: — And what does this bespeak, but that the Doctrine itself is false and erroneous, which is grounded upon the Words? viz. That personal Righ­teousness is no more a Part of our justifying Righteous­ness, than filthy Rags are a Part of our Ornament; Christ's Righteousness being the sole Matter of our Justification. When a Protestant argues from Reason and common Sense that the Words, This is my Body, cannot be taken literal­ly; does it not follow from thence, that (in his Judg­ment) the Doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot possi­bly be a Matter of divine Revelation? — If he tho't the Doctrine true, tho' not proved from the Text, the Method that he would take, would be, first to concede to the Truth of it, and then by a particular Consideration of the Words and of the Context, to endeavour to evince that they related to another Matter, and not to that; and would not run to Reason and common Sense to prove the Absur­dity of the popish Construction.— But Mr. Briant's Me­thod [Page 40] is aliene from this, as I have noted, and shows his true Design, however he is pleased to gloss over the Mat­ter, and disguise his Intention.

What may further confirm us in this, is his saying, ‘The Words of the Text as they are COMMONLY received, are a standing Reflection on all Virtue and good Manners; the most effectual Discouragement that could be given to the Practice of Christian Mo­rality; and consequently one of the most fatal Snares that could be laid for the Souls of Men.’ —(Ser. p. 9.) Is not this a direct Stroke against the commonly received Protestant Doctrine of Justification, which we hold may be in Part gathered from this Text, but more fully from other Texts? If it tends to Libertinism, to argue from these Words, that the best Righteousness of Men has not the least Hand in this great Affair, has it not the same Tendency, to argue it from other Texts? — Must it not then by necessary Consequence be an unscriptural Doc­trine? —

And then again, if his Meaning be only to set the World right about one single Text, and not to run down commonly received Principles and Doctrines, what is he after in that long Harrangue of his, in Pag. 23, 24? Would he throw away so much Rhetoric, in combating a Shadow?— And must the Generality of Christians be represented as Fools and Madmen; as swallowing the greatest Absurdities and most palpable Nonsense; as venting the Fictions of their own Brains, for the Doc­trines and Precepts of the Gospel; as receiving a Scheme of Religion that in EVERY ARTICLE is a down­right Affront to common Sense; as being ready to kill the happy Few (among whom besure Mr. Briant is one) that have Sense eno' and dare trust their own Faculties so far, as to judge in themselves what is right; and will not renounce their Reason in Complaisance to their so­vereign Dictates: — I say, must a great Part of the Christian World be thus represented, meerly because they don't see just as Mr. Briant does about this one Passage of Scripture?— Alas! What rabble-charming [Page 41] Sounds have work'd him up to such a Pitch of fiery Bigo­try on a sudden!— But if he will honestly confess, that he had a further Reach in these Strokes (as he must do, if he will not renounce his Reason) we will clear him of Bigotry; and desire to know, whom they were levelled at.— Perhaps he will turn them off upon the Papists, (which would be as natural as several of his Evasions) But this he can't justly do, because they are of one Heart and Soul with him in their Construction of this Text, as well as in some other Things.—Whom then must he mean? — Why the stupid and libertine Sect of Calvi­nists, that have such a great Spread in the World, who are such mortal Foes to Reason, [to use some of his own Lan­guage] who are all for believing, & nothing for doing,— who amuse themselves with a vain and groundless Per­swasion, that there is no Need of their being righteous themselves, because they have the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them,— who think it their pe­culiar Priviledge, to be discharged from their Obligati­ons to obey their Master, and that they which break his Commandments, stand fairer for his Grace, than those who conscienciously keep them, for fear they should trust to what they do:—And finally, who persecute such as are for the Way of Truth, of Honesty and Integrity (viz. Mr. Briant and those like-minded) denying them popu­lar Applause or priestly Favours, and endeavouring to bring them to Poverty and Contempt.—

But Mr. Briant goes on and says,— ‘If you tho't I had taught, that we are perfectly righteous; or that we are as righteous as the Angels in Heaven; or what is worse still, that our Righteousness deserves to be compared with the infinite Purity of the divine Na­ture; or finally, that we can merit Heaven by it;— If these were your Thoughts, you have mistaken the Man, and are fighting only with your own Shadow.’ — To which he adds, ‘I challenge you, or any one, or all of your Attestators, to point out a single Passage in my Sermon where the Doctrine of Justification by the Merit of Man's personal Righteousness is asserted, [Page 42] or from whence it can by good and necessary Conse­quence be infer'd.’ (p. 10. REM.)—Here Mr. Briant displays his Subtilty (not to say his "Iesuitical" Craft) in stating the Points of Doctrine in Mr. Porter's Sermon, so as that he might with the better Grace deny there was any Controversy between them.— But is there not one chief Point relating to the Doctrine of Iustification left out (besides other Doctrines more cursorily mentioned) wherein they directly militate? Does not Mr. Porter say, that the Righteousness of Christ is the only MATERI­AL, as well as the meritorious Cause of our Justification? And that personal Righteousness or good Works are so far from being the Condition or Cause of our Justification, that they are only to be consider'd as the Fruits and Ef­fects of it, and as a Part of the Salvation purchased by Christ? — Why was not this mentioned, but because he knew in his own Soul, that they were of quite different Sentiments here?—The rankest Arminian upon Earth will acknowledge, as far as Mr. Briant has done, in one of his best Passages, viz. "Forgiveness of Sin and final Ac­ceptance with the Father, is thro' the Merits of the Son." — Or, in other Words (to take the Passage in a favoura­ble Sense) The Righteousness of Christ (passive) is the only meritorious Cause of our Justification, or of the For­giveness of our Sins ▪ (in which they make the Whole of Justification to consist:) But then they add, with Mr. Briant, "That 'tis upon the Condition of Faith, Repen­tance and good Living." —(SERM. p. 29.)—All these, they think, must necessarily precede a Man's Justification; and so far "contribute towards it, and have an actual Influence upon it" that when he hath attained a Compe­tency of Faith (or a good Creed) Repentance and good Works, he then becomes intitled to the Merits of Christ, to the Benefit of his Death & Sufferings, which procured these easy Terms, and make up his Defects: So, upon this Foundation, he may with Comfort apply them to his own Soul.—And is it not evident, from the Quota­tions already made, and from the whole Run of Mr. Briant's Sermon, that here he is of one Heart and Soul [Page 43] with the Arminians, at least, and that he allows no more to Christ's Righteousness than they do? And is it not as evident, that 'tis the contrary Scheme maintained by Mr. Porter, i. e. That Christ's Righteousness is the sole MATTER of our Justification; That 'till we are justifi­ed we cannot perform one good Work, That to suppose good Works (or "good living") have an actual Influ­ence in the Affair, is to place them in the Room of Christ and his Righteousness, &c. I say is it not manifest, that 'tis this Scheme of Doctrine, which is loaded with such Re­proach thro'out Mr. Briant's Sermon, and is represent­ed as such a Doctrine of Licentiousness?

These Things consider'd, 'tis astonishing to me (as well as to many others) how Mr. Briant dare pretend, that there is no Controversy between him and Mr. Porter in Regard of the Doctrinals of Religion: — Surely he tho't (as he once and again insinuates he did in his Ser­mon) that he had none but Fools and Madmen to deal with, or he would not have ventur'd upon such a confi­dent Assertion.—But what is become of his "Honesty and Integrity," or of his "inflexible Virtue," all this while? — Verily he needs Some-body to write "an Apology" for him; as much as the Prophet or the good Gentlemen whom he so vilifies. — For my Part, I must say, that I never in my Life read a more bare-faced Piece of Arminianism, or worse, ^† than Mr. Briant's [Page 44] Sermon is: And in uncharitable Censures it goes beyond most of the Arminian Writers. For while they charge the Calvinists with holding Doctrines subversive of Re­ligion and Godliness, they nevertheless take Care to [Page 45] express their Charity for them, as having a quite contra­ry Design, even to serve Religion, rather than hurt it, [Page 46] not seeing the Consequence of their Principles: But Mr. Briant, in more Places than one, and I think every where [Page 47] (except in his Quotation from Foster) makes them equally bad in Practice as in Principle, and represents them as the most finish'd Set of Villains upon Earth, — utter Enemies to all Holiness and good Works. — A vile and infamous Satyr indeed!

On this Occasion, I can't help saying, one would think, that these Men who talk so much [in the Pulpit] of the Necessity of personal Righteousness and good Living, and appear so zealous against Libertine-Principles and Practices, would [out of the Pulpit] discover themselves to be some of the holiest Men upon Earth: — But alas! is their not too visible Ground for the Observation, which a dignify'd Layman (no Friend to New-Light) not long ago made, namely, That the Men who talk so much of good Works, he tho't, had the least good Works of any Men?—And what if I should say, that it was spoken with peculiar Reference to Mr. B. and some of his In­timates?

'Tis in vain to urge Holiness upon Men, without lay­ing a proper Foundation for it in Union with Christ by Faith, in the Regeneration of the Soul which is dead in Trespasses and in Sins, &c.— Without this, Ministers do but build Castles in the Air.— But what of this ap­pears in Mr. Briant's Sermon? — Doesn't he seem to hold forth all along, that there is a sufficient Foundation for Holiness laid in the Nature of Man; so that 'tis but improving his natural Reason and Power of moral Agen­cy, and he will arrive to it?

Object. But does not he hold forth the Necessity of the Spirit's Influence in his Sermon?— I answer, Yes; but the Influence Mr. Briant speaks of, is only upon "Minds well disposed" already, and meerly in a Way of "Concurrence." They first rightly improving what they have by Nature, then the Spirit of GOD comes in, to assist in compleating the Work; co-operating with them 'till all the Divine Virtues are produced, and they have "put on the New-Nature of Right Action." SER. p. 16,—19.)—This is the Scheme of Doctrine, by which he hopes to serve the Cause of Virtue and true Religion [Page 48] in the World:—Yet isn't it in truth but poorly served," as he himself seems to be sensible? (Pag. 29.) Has not such Sort of Preaching rather a Tendency to banish it out of the World?—How many, that have endeavour'd to practise upon this Scheme, have afterwards confess'd, that they found all their Labour to be in vain; that not­withstanding their strongest Resolutions and Endeavours, they could not get the Victory over their inward Corrup­tions, whatever Restraint was laid upon the outward Acts?— But that when GOD had discover'd the Gospel-Way of Salvation to them, and had wro't in them the Belief of the Truth, they then immediately found what they be­fore sought in vain; the Power of their Corruptions was broken, and the Practice of Sin with Delight, cast off!

Before I leave this Head, I can't but just take Notice how Mr. Briant seems to flout at ‘some of the most pious and zealous of Christ's Embassadors, their bitter Cry about the present Decay of Zeal for the Faith of the Fathers;’ and what a Slur he casts upon our vene­rable Fore-Fathers in that rude Expression, "the Faith which was then imported." (p. 20. REM.) — How con­temptible does this Faith appear in his Eyes, when he speaks of it in such a ludicrous Manner?—And what a mean Opinion has he of the Importers themselves, as well as their Principles?

Having thus renew'd and confirm'd the Charge of Arminianism bro't against Mr. B. (in which 'tis Pity he has so many Abettors, whether among the Clergy or Laity) I now proceed to the other Thing propos'd.

II. To take some Notice of Mr. Briant's Remarks upon the Word, Our, in his Text; his changing of which for the Word Their, in his Sermon, the Attesta­tors thought to be a great Abuse of the Text, by al­tering the Sense of it.

The Sum and Substance of what he here says, is this, ‘May we not rationally suppose, that the Prophet is here speaking in a publick Capacity, and that he was the Peo­ple's Mouth to GOD in this humble Confession; and of Consequence, not designing to include himself, or to [Page 49] speak of his own personal (but only of a general) Guilt.’ — But what Necessity is there of supposing this? — Does not the Word, Our, in it's natural Import include, not only the Prophet, but all the Righteous in the Iewish Na­tion? — Why then must we depart from the proper and literal Sense of the Term? — Mayn't another, that is an Enemy to the Doctrine of Assurance, as well come and say, that he supposes, the Prophet does not include himself, but is only personating a few extraordinary good Men in the Iewish Church, when he says in this Prayer, Doubtless thou art our Father,— Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer — We are thine — We shall be saved, &c.— Would not his Reasoning be as cogent and con­clusive, as Mr. Briant's? — And must not the Doctrine of Assurance necessarily fall before him; this Construc­tion affording him a Key to get rid of all the We's and Our's and other appropriating Terms in the Bible, on which some lay so much Stress in Support of this Doc­trine? — But surely Mr. Briant will not admit of this; since he is such an Enemy to all Doctrines, that tend ‘to rob sincere upright Christians of that divine Com­fort they are the proper Heirs of, and to fill their Minds with needless Fears and Scruples about their spiritual State.’ — And therefore we may rationally conclude, he will readily grant, that the Prophet includes himself, as well as other good Men of that Time, in these Passages: — And if so, I would ask, why the Words, Our and We, must not be understood in the same Latitude and Extent thro'out this Prayer? —

No, this can't be, says Mr. Briant, because of some Passages in the Context, &c. But what are these? — The first he alledges is in the same Verse with his Text; We are all as an unclean Thing. Upon which he remarks, ‘The Prophet must (unless you will confound all Cha­racters) here personate the Iewish Church and People, and speak in their Names.’ — But why can't a good Man speak thus, including himself, without confound­ing Characters? — Pray, what does that Confession a­mount to, more than this, We are all Sinners, or, We [Page 50] are all defiled with Sin? — And mayn't a good Man in­tend himself, as well as others, in such an Expression, without setting himself upon a Level with the worst of Sinners; or without making himself a Sinner of equal Degree with them? — Does not the Apostle say, O wretched Man that I am, who shall deliver Me, &c? —And does he confound Characters here? — What does the Expression import, but the deep Sense he had of his na­tive Corruption, which mixed it self with and adhered to his very best Performances? — And does not Iob (the best Man then alive) say, Behold, I am vile, i. e. a wretched, filthy, polluted Creature! Chap. XL.—And why mayn't Isaiah be understood as speaking in the same Sense with these good Men, in this Part of his Confession, as far as it related to himself? — 'Tis certain, the godly are conscious of such Defects and Failures in them­selves, and such Proneness to Sin, that they find just Cause, in Confessions of Sins, to join themselves with o­ther Men; —as this very Prophet elsewhere doth. Chap. VI.5. Wo is me, for I am undone, because I am a Man of unclean Lips, and I dwell in the midst of a People of unclean Lips.— And pray, what more is there in the Words which Mr. Briant brings as an Objection, than in the Words now quoted? — The Prophet indeed speaks of the Uncleanness of his Lips; but doesn't that imply some Uncleanness of Heart too? — For out of the Abundance of the Heart the Mouth speaketh. Matt. XII.34. And he speaks likewise in as strong Terms of his own Un­cleanness, as of that of the People's: — Isn't there then as great a Confusion of Characters here, as can possibly be supposed in the other Place? — What Evasion can Mr. Briant have here?— He must e'en fight it out with the Prophet, if he still thinks it Confusion, or a blend­ing of Characters, to join Saints and Sinners in the same general Confession.

I have sometimes tho't, how Mr. Briant would have triumph'd in it as an Argument ungainsayable, if the Prophet, instead of speaking so particularly in this Place, had only said in general, Wo to us; WE are undone, for [Page 51] WE are ALL of unclean Lips.— How strongly would he have pleaded, that the Prophet could not possibly in­clude himself, but only spake as the Representative of the People? And how easily would he have got rid of the Us and We and All in the Text? — What, a good Man and a Prophet (he would have been ready to say) "One that was all along in the full Exercise of Grace"▪ and yet undone! Under a Wo ▪ and a base foul-mouth'd smutty "Fellow"! — It would be almost "Blasphe­my", to suppose it. — It would be an evident ‘con­founding of all Distinctions between Good and Evil, be­tween the Saint and the Sinner.’ — This surely would have been a much better Plea, than any he has produc­ed; but with what an ill Grace does it appear now? — And Mr. Briant, if he has the humble Spirit of the in­spired Prophet, will confess himself to be a Man of unclean Lips, and as an unclean Thing. Which of the Command­ments does he keep as he should, without defiling him­self with the Breach thereof, in Thought, Word, or Deed?

This Text may serve as a Key, to unfold all the o­ther parallel Places, that he alledges, wherein he thinks that the Word, Our, must not be taken personally, but representatively▪ it being as rational to suppose that the Prophet takes in himself there, as in this Place, since the Expressions are not so strong as they be here.— And thus I might fairly dismiss the Point.—But left he should think this a meer Evasion, I shall a little consider the other Places mentioned.

The next is Isai, LXIII.17. still a Part of this Pray­er, —Why hast thou hardned OUR Heart from thy Fear? — ‘If you apply this to the Prophet (says Mr. B.) you fix the worst of Characters, that is any where given of the most abandon'd Men on Earth, on one of the best of Men then alive.’ — I answer, there are Degrees of Hardness; — Reigning Hardness of Heart is indeed the proper Character of the worst of Men; but is there not some Spice of this Hardness (tho' not reigning) in the best of Men? — As far as Sin remains in them, so far their [Page 52] Hearts are hard; and therefore they may well include themselves in such general Expressions. — How often do we read of Hardness of Heart in the very Apostles, the best Men then on Earth? Mark vi.52.—viii.17.— xvi.14.— Hence it is, that Christians in general are thus cautioned, Heb iii.13 Exhort one another daily,— lest any of you be hardned, &c. — But what is all this to the Purpose? will Mr. Briant say. This was not the Case of Isaiah at this Time; — His Heart was not hardned, when he made this Prayer; but he appears to be in a high Exercise of Grace. — I readily grant, that he was so, and that a hardned Frame of Spirit is inconsistent with the Exercise of Grace;— But then I say, that a Sensibility of Hardness, and the Exercise of Grace, are no Ways inconsistent:— A Sense of Hard­ness argues Tenderness; a Heart that's truly hard, is no Ways sensible of it; but is stupid and secure.—This we may see in the Instance of David; how careless and se­cure was he, while under the Prevalence of a hardned Frame of Heart! But when he came to renew Acts of Grace, how sensible was he of this Hardness, and how does he lament it and mourn over it? — The more strong and lively the Exercise of Faith is, the more will a Person see of his inherent Pravity, and of the natural Hardness of his Heart:— The Light of Faith is an humbling Thing; in this Light we see our Darkness: A View of Christ in his Glory will give us a View of our own Vileness and Deformity, and abase us to the lowest. This we may see in the Instances of Iob, Chapt. xl.4. & xlii.6. of Agur, Prov. xxx. and of Isaiah, Chap. vi.5. And this is agreeable to the Experience of all the Children of GOD. — (Mr. BRIANT, art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these Things!—) Well may they therefore use such self-abasing Expressions in their Con­fession of Sin to GOD, relative to their own Case.

The next parallel Text urged, is Isai. lix.12— Our Transgressions are multiplied:— And then follows an Enumeration of some particular Transgressions, as Ly­ing, Oppression, &c. which the Prophet could not be [Page 53] guilty of.— To this I answer, that the Prophet might include himself in the general Confession (as being a Sin­ner,) tho' in the particular Confession following (in which he does not so much as mention the Word Our) he may have more especial Reference to the People. — Isn't it the Intent of all faithful Ministers, when they use such general Phrases in their Prayers, to include themselves; altho' when they come to Particulars, they recite chiefly the Sins of the People?—

But what if we should go a Step higher, and suppose, a good Man should intend himself (as well as others) both in the general and particular Confession, would there be any Absurdity in it?— Might he not well in­clude himself, upon such Grounds as these, (1.) As hav­ing within himself the Seeds and Principles of all the Sins confess'd, yea, and of all Sin (tho' the reigning Power thereof be broken in him) which, if GOD should with­hold his Grace, might speedily break forth into Act?— Or (2.) As having made himself in some Measure Par­taker of other Men's Sins, by not mourning for them as he ought, by not being as earnest as he should in cry­ing for Pardon, and in seeking to turn away divine Ven­geance, by not bearing due Testimony against them, and in not using utmost Endeavours to put a Stop to their Progress, &c. — Can the best justify themselves as to these Things altogether?

But this could not be the Case of the Prophet Isaiah, will Mr. Briant say, who was ever faithful in these Re­gards.— I answer, If he thus objects, he has more Charity for the Prophet, than he had for himself: For what does he mean, when he says, Chap. vi.5. Wo is me, for I am undone, because I am of unclean Lips (which some read, I have held my Peace, I have been too silent in the Cause of God, too little of a Monitor and Re­prover, too neglectful of Prayer, &c.) and I dwell in the midst of a People of unclean Lips. — Is it not as if he had said, besides my own personal Uncleanness, I have the Uncleanness of the People in some Measure to answer for; "I have both by my Omissions and Commissions [Page 54] involved my self in the Guilt of their Sins, and there­fore may justly fear to partake of their Plagues? ^†— Or what was the Prophet's Intent, when he cries out, My Leanness, my Leanness! Wo unto me! Chap. xxiv.16. Doesn't it imply some Sense of Unfaithfulness in his Of­fice, as well as want of Success?— But if he had not acknowledged it in plain Terms, we might have argued it from the Nature of the Thing; since to suppose the Prophet had nothing to confess in these Respects, would be to suppose him perfect: and I suppose Mr. Briant no Friend to the Doctrine of Perfection in this Life.

For my Part, I can't see the Propriety of Ministers saying We, or Our, in particular Confessions of Sin, without they are in some Sense (either more nearly or remotely) guilty of what they confess.—Suppose, GOD had taught us by the Ministry of spotless Angels (instead of sinful Men) as he might have done; how would such Expressions sound from their Mouths, We are all as an unclean Thing:—Our Transgressions are multiply'd; Lying, Oppression, Revolt, uttering from the Heart Words of Falsehood, &c. — Is not the Thing too shocking to imagine?— And then further, can we find any Instance of the Man Jesus Christ's expressing himself thus, as the Mouth of the People, while on Earth (I don't remember any at present) even tho' he bare our Sins in his own Bo­dy on the Cross!

Thus I have consider'd the several Instances bro't by Mr. Briant, wherein he thinks the Words, We, & Our, cannot be taken in a personal, but only in a relative Sense, as it is used by the Prophet in the Capacity of a pub­lick Representative of the People. — And upon laying these Things together, doesn't it appear probable, at least, that he was under a gross Mistake?

But after all, if we should grant for Argument's sake (tho' I see no Reason to grant it) that good Men may in some Cases use the Word, Our, in Confessions of Sin, when they don't mean to include themselves; it will not follow, that this was the Case of the Prophet in [Page 55] the Text; there may not be the same Reason for the one, as for the other; in the former Case, they could not perhaps include themselves consistently with Truth; but here the Prophet may; for it is certainly true, that even his Righteousness was as filthy Rags ▪ view'd comparative­ly, or in respect of Justification before God; which is all we plead for. — Mr Briant himself in effect grants this, and so destroys the Force of his own Argument, when he says in his Letter to Mr. Porter, (p. 17.) ‘You suppose, the Prophet is confessing the Insufficiency of Man's best personal Righteousness to Justification:— This, I grant, would sound very well; it would be a great Expression of Humility and Self abasement, as to the godly Part of them, to acknowledge that after all their virtuous Attainments, they could not stand Tryal by the Law of perfect Obedience, but must have Recourse to the free unbo't Grace of GOD for Pardon and Acceptance.’ — Now I say, "if it sound very well, and be a great Expression of Humility," for the Prophet to make such a Sort of Confession, or to comprehend himself in it (with other good Men,) he certainly might do it consistent with Truth:— What then is become of all Mr. Briant's Arguings (from parallel Texts and otherways) to prove, that he could not mean himself personally without speaking falsely; which is plainly what he is after, both in this and the foregoing Head (on the Word, All) or he says nothing to the Purpose?— Surely he had forgotten this Concession, or he would not have so palpably contradicted himself — But if Mr. Briant (to free himself from Contradiction) should deny his Meaning to be as I have represented it namely, that the Prophet could not intend himself without speaking falsely; then this is the Amount of his Arguments, put into a proper Form.— If the Word [...] sometimes stands for Many, and the Word, Our, for Their or Your, in some particular Passages of Scripture▪ because the Speaker could not comprehend himself, o [...] every Individual, without speaking falsely; then they must be so taken in this Text also, where the Speaker [Page 56] may comprehend himself, &c. without speaking falsely. —What an absurd Consequence is here! — Yet Mr. Briant must necessarily father it, or acknowledge his Self-Contradiction.

However, If we should not take Advantage from "this enormous Blunder" of Mr. Briant's, but let it pass, what do his Arguments amount to (except what he says upon the Context) but to a meer begging the Question?—If he had first proved, that there was good Ground and Reason of restraining and limiting the Words, All and Our, in several Passages of Scripture; and had then ap­ply'd it to his Text, and shown that there was the same Ground of Limitation here, he had so far acted the Part of a Workman that needeth not to be ashamed, and had really done something to the Purpose: but what of this appears? In Effect here is nothing but altum Silentium. — So that, in fine, we have little more than his bare Word for it (unless it be the few Remarks upon the Context, which have been or shall be immediately con­sider'd) that the Terms, All and Our, in the Text, must be taken restrictively, and not in their natural Import.

Let us now hear what he hath further to say upon the Point:— ‘I will only add (says he) that for the same Reason the Prophet is here supposed to include himself in the Terms, All and Our, he must likewise be supposed to include himself in the following Cha­racter— There is none that calleth upon thy Name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee. — The Text says, NONE:—But was not that Prophet a Man of Prayer?’ — I answer, Yes; but yet he may include himself notwithstanding; and not only himself, but all the Righteous then alive; of whom doubtless there were many, whatever Mr. Briant says to the contrary; for the Prophet wrote the latter Part of his Prophecy in the Days of Hezekiah, in whose Time there was a great Reformation. 2 Chron. xxx.

Mr. Briant must necessarily grant, that these Words of the Prophet must be taken with some Restriction, and not in the most absolute Sense, as if there were none (to [Page 57] whom they refer) that prayed at all; since he himself says, that this People ‘made many and long Prayers, insomuch that the Almighty declares (speaking after the Manner of Men) that he was troubled and quite worried out with them.’ (SERM. p. 13.)— And if they must be understood under a Restriction, even when applied to the Wicked (i. e. as chiefly holding forth the Formality and Deadness of their Prayers, rather than their total Neglect of them) why mayn't we as well suppose them capable of a further Restriction, so as likewise to be applicable to the Case of the Righteous?— May it not in some Sense be said even of them, especially at some particular Times, that they call not upon GOD's Name. i. e. They don't do it with that Faith and Fervency as they ought, or as it follows in the Verse of the Text, by stirring (or awaking) themselves up to take hold of GOD! And mayn't the Prophet, when humbling himself before GOD, also put in himself for one among the Subjects of this Complaint, as seeing in the Light of Faith (which was then in Exercise) how far short he came of doing his Duty in the Degree that was required?— Or what if we should suppose that in the general Declen­sion that followed after the Reformation, I just mentioned, the Prophet found in himself some Taint of this care­less, prayerless Spirit, as well as other good Men; and should thereupon (when he came to renew Acts of Grace) lament it in such Expressions as these,— Our Hearts are hardned from thy Fear — There are none that stir up themselves to lay hold of thee, &c. — I say, would such a Supposition be any Ways absurd, or at all un­reasonable?

But let that be as it will, I think, the other Solution sufficient, namely, that the Prophet might include him­self, from a Sense of his Short-comings in the Duties of Faith and Prayer, and their Defectiveness in Degree, of what the Law required, yea, and of what was really at­tainable in this Life.— Alas! ‘in the Prayers of the Saints, at best, there is always too little of Love and Zeal to the Name of the Lord, and too little of a stiring [Page 58] up themselves to take hold of GOD.’ — Suppose, GOD should now give it as the proper Character of the Peo­ple of this Land (among whom, we trust, there are ma­ny precious Servants of Christ, who live in the Exercise of Faith,) that there are none that call upon his Name, that stir up themselves to take hold of him; — Might not the Conscience of every one apply it to himself? — Would there be a single Man, that dare plead, not Guilty, in some Sense or other? — Or if any did, wou'dn't it be a Token of their Pride, rather than of their Humility; and show their little Sense of the Spirituality and Extent of the moral Law? Their very Denial would be a Proof of their Guilt. — Would even Mr. Briant's warmest Devotions stand the Test, if try'd by the Law of Mora­lity, which he appears such an Advocate for? Do's he not see moral Failures enough in them to cover him with Confusion and Self-Abasement?

There is another Objection, of a more general Nature, hinted at in Mr. Briant's Sermon, which not only affects our Construction of a particular Word, but also the whole Text, in the Sense we take it; and that is founded on what is said in the preceeding Verse, Thou meetest him that rejoyceth and worketh Righteousness, &c.—Here true Righteousness is highly commended, how then can we suppose that the same Righteousness should be so much depreciated, almost in the next Sentence? — But lest I should incur the Censure of being "Verbose," I shall wave a particular Answer, and shall refer him to what the Rev. Mr. Foxcroft says upon the Point in his sea­sonable Sermon on the Text (p. 6, 7.) where this Objecti­on is fully refuted.— And as for any other occurring Difficulties, I shall refer to the same Sermon, and to Mr. Porter's Vindication, for a Solution.

And now having finish'd what I at first proposed, I shall close all with some pertinent Extracts from the Writings of a precious Minister of Christ, now with the Lord.— ‘Some think (says he) that if good Works, and Holiness, and Repentance, be allowed no Room in Justification, that there is no Room left for them [Page 59] in the World, and in the Practice of Believers.— So hard seems it to be to some, to keep in their Eye the certain fixed Bounds betwixt Justification and Sancti­fication.’ — Again, speaking of the Arminianizing Dissenters in England, he says; — ‘They will not al­low the personal Righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us any otherwise than in the Merit of it, as purchasing for us a more easy Law of Grace; in the Observation whereof, they place all our justifying Righteousness: Un­derstanding hereby our own personal inherent Holiness, and nothing else.—They hold, That Christ died to merit this of the Father, viz. That we might be justified upon easier Terms under the Gospel, than those of the Law of Innocency; instead of Iustification by perfect Obedience, we are now to be justified by our own evangelical Righ­teousness, made up of Faith, Repentance and sincere Obe­dience.— And if we hold not with them in this, they tell the World, we are Enemies to evangelical Holi­ness, slighting the Practice of all good Works, and allowing our Hearers to live as they list.— Thus they slander the Preachers of free Grace, because we do not place Justification in our our own inherent Holi­ness, but in Christ's perfect Righteousness, imputed to us upon our believing in him; which Faith, we teach, purifies the Heart, and always inclines to Ho­liness of Life.— Neither do we hold any Faith to be true and saving, that doth not shew it self by good Works; without which no Man is, or can be justifi­ed, either in his own Conscience, or before Men.—’

And then again; ‘They preach up Holiness, as if it was their proper Doctrine, and disowned by us; when they cannot but know in their Consciences, that there is no Difference betwixt them and us, about the Necessity of Holiness, but only about it's Spring and Place in Salvation.— We derive it from Jesus Christ and Faith in him, and know assuredly that it can spring from nothing else.—We place it betwixt Justi­fication and Glory; and that is it's Scripture-Place, and no where else can it be found or stand, let Men try it as much and long as they will.’

[Page 60]And still further; ‘Is it not unaccountable, to charge a People with Licentiousness, when the Chargers can­not deny, and some cannot well bear the Strictness of their Walk? — It is commonly said, that it is only their Principles, and the Tendency of them to loose walking, that they blame. — But it seems not fair to charge a People with licentious Doctrines, when the Professors thereof are approved of for their Godliness; and when they do sincerely profess, that their Godli­ness begun with, and is promoted by the Faith of their Principles.—’

Moreover he says; ‘As for inherent Holiness, Is it not sufficiently secur'd by the Spirit of Christ, received by Faith, the certain Spring and Cause of it; by the Word of GOD, the plain and perfect Rule of it; by the declared Necessity of it to all them that look to be saved, and to justify the sincerity of a Man's Faith? unless we bring it into Justification, and thereby make our own pitiful Holiness sit on the Throne of Judg­ment, with the precious Blood of the Lamb of GOD.—’

He observes further; ‘That this Doctrine of Justi­fication by Christ's Righteousness alone is a spiritual Mystery, and lieth not level to a natural Understand­ing. 1 Cor. ii.10, 14.—Working for Life, a Man na­turally understands; but believing for Life, he under­stands not.— To mend the Old Man, he knows; but to put on the New Man by Faith is a Riddle to him.— The Study of Holiness, and to endeavour to square his Life according to GOD's Law, he knows a little of, tho' he can never do it; but to draw Sanctificati­on from Christ by Faith, in and thro' the Force of the Spirit of Christ in the Heart by Faith, is meer Canting to him.— A new Life he understands a little, but no­thing of a New Birth and Regeneration: He never saw himself stark dead.—Nay, not only is it unknown to the natural Man, but he is by his natural State, an Enemy to it; he neither doth, nor can know it, nor approve of it. 1 Cor. ii.14.—’

[Page 61]Again he says; ‘It is no small Disadvantage this Doctrine of Justification lies under from the Spirit of this Day, we live in.—A light, frothy, trifling Temper prevails generally: Doctrines of the greatest Weight are talked of and treated about with a vain uncon­cerned Frame of Spirit, as if Men contended ra­ther about Opinions and School-Points, than about the Oracles of GOD, and Matters of Faith.— But if Men's Hearts were seen by themselves, if Sin were felt, if Men's Consciences were enlivened, if GOD's holy Law were known in it's Exactness and Severity, and the Glory and Majesty of the Lawgiver shin­ing before Men's Eyes, if Men were living as leaving Time and launching forth into Eternity, the Gospel-Salvation by Jesus Christ would be more regarded.—’

Furthermore he adds; ‘It is not a little provoking, that some are so captious, that no Minister can preach in the hearing of some, (of the Freedom of GOD's Grace, of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, of sole and single believing on him for Righteousness and e­ternal Life, of the Impossibility of a natural Man's do­ing any good Work, before he be in Christ; of the Im­possibility of the mixing of Man's Righteousness and Works, with Christ's Righteousness in the Business of Iustification, &c.) but he is immediately called, or suspected to be an Antinomian.— If we say, that Faith in Iesus Christ is neither Work, nor Condition, nor Qua­lification in Justification, but is a meer Instrument, re­ceiving (as an empty Hand receiveth the freely given Alms) the Righteousness of Christ; and that in it's very Act, it is a renouncing of all Things but the Gift of Grace, the Fire is kindled; — So that it is come to that, as Mr. Christopher Fowler said, That he that will not be Antichristian, must be called an Antinomian.— But what shall we do in this Case? What shall we do for Peace with our Brethren?— Shall we lie still un­der their undeserved Reproaches, and for keeping the Peace, silently suffer others to beat us unjustly? — [Page 62] If it were our own personal Concern, we should bear it: —If it were only their charging us with Ignorance, Weakness, and being unstudied Divines (as they have used liberally to call all that have not learned and dare not believe their new Divinity) we might easily pass it by, or put it up.— But when we see the pure Gospel of Christ corrupted, and an Arminian Gos­pel new vampt and obtruded on People, to the certain Peril of the Souls of such as believe it, and our Ministry reflected upon, which should be dearer to us than our Lives, can we be silent! — As we have a Charge from the Lord, to deliver to our People what we have received from him, so as he calls and enables, we are not to give Place by Subjection, not for an Hour, to such as creep in, not only to Spy out, but to destroy, not so much the Gospel Liberty, as the Gospel Salvation we have in Christ Jesus, and to bring us back under the Yoke of legal Bondage.— And indeed the Case in that Epistle to the Galatians and ours have a great Affi­nity.—’

Once more he says; ‘There is not a Minister that dealeth seriously with the Souls of Men, but he finds an Arminian Scheme of Justification in every unrenew­ed Heart.— And is it not sadly to be bewailed, that Divines should plead that same Cause, that we daily find the Devil pleading in the Hearts of all natural Men? And that instead of casting down, 2 Cor. x.4, 5. they should be making Defences for such strong Holds, as must either be levelled with the Dust, or the Rebel that holds them out, must eternally perish?’

And to the same Purpose he says; — ‘Dr. Ames his Observation holds good as to all the Arminian Di­vinity, that it is contra communem Sensum Fidelium, a­gainst the common Sense of Believers.—How evident is it, that several, who by Education, or an unsound Ministry, having had their natural Enmity against the Grace of GOD strengthned; when the Lord by his [Page 63] Spirit hath broke in upon their Hearts, and hath raised a serious Soul-Exercise about their Salvation, their turning to GOD and CHRIST, & their turning from Arminianism, have begun together?—And some of the greatest Champions for the Grace of GOD have been Persons thus dealt with, as we might In­stance—’

Finally, he says; — ‘Let us make Christ crucified our great Study, as Christians, and the Preaching of him, our main Work, as Ministers. 1 Cor. ii.2. Paul determined to know nothing else.— But many manage the Ministry, as if they had taken up a contrary Deter­mination, even to know any Thing, save Iesus Christ, and him crucified.— We are amazed to see so many ashamed of the Cross of Christ, and to behave as if they accounted the Tidings of Salvation, by the slain Son of GOD, an old antiquated Story, and unfit to be daily preached.— And what comes in the Room thereof, is not unknown, nor is it worth mentioning.— For all Things that come in Christ's Room, and justle him out, either of Hearts, or Pulpits, are alike abomi­nable to a Christian.— How many Sermons may a Man hear, and read, when printed; yea, and Books written, about the Way to Heaven, wherein is hardly the Name of Iesus Christ? —And if he be named, it is the Name of Christ as a Iudge and Lawgiver, rather than that of a Saviour.—When we cannot avoid the observ­ing of those sad Things, let it be a sharp Spur to us, to preach Christ more, and live more to his Praise.— Let us not be deceived with that P [...]ence, That Christ may be preach'd, when he is not nam [...].— The Preach­ing of the Gospel is the Naming of Christ, and so called, Rom. xv.20. And Paul was to bear Christ's Name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the Children of Israel. Act. ix.15.—’

Thus that judicious and excellent Divine.—

[Page 64]These Things I recommend to Mr. Briant's and every Reader's serious Consideration— And subscribe my self,

P. S. I am sorry, that Mr. Briant has waited so long for an Answer; — But this I have to say in Excuse, that it was two Months after the Publication of his Remarks, before I could obtain a Sight of them; He not being so kind as to favour the Attestators with a Copy: — And for some Time after, I was un­determin'd in my own Mind whether to intermeddle further in the Controversy: But (to pass over other Considerations, of Weight with me) the Law of Self-Defence at last obliges me to it; and I trust, better late than never.—