IN the proſecution of the deſign I have in view, I ſhall humbly attempt theſe things:

I. The paſſages quoted from the author's own words are as follow.

The impenitent ſinner who continues obſtinately to reject and oppoſe the ſalvation offered in the goſpel, does in ſome reſpects, yea, on the whole, become not leſs but more vicious and guilty in God's ſight, the more inſtruction and knowledge he gets in attendance on the means of grace.P. 124. Yea, his impenitence and all his ſins are ſo aggravated by the light and conviction he obtains, that whatever particular ways of known ſin he has forſaken, and how many ſoever external duties he attends upon; yet, on the whole, he is undoubtedly a greater ſinner, than he was when he lived in ſecurity and the neglect of the means of grace.125. So that the impenitent unregenerate ſinner does not grow better, but rather grows worſe by all the inſtruction and knowledge he gets in the uſe of means. And awakened convinced ſinners with whom moſt means are uſed, and who are moſt attentive to the concerns of their ſouls, and moſt in earneſt in the uſe of means, are commonly, if not always, really more guilty in God's ſight, than they that are ſecure and at eaſe in their ſins.Ibid.

Sinners who continue impenitent under the greateſt conviction of conſcience, and the moſt concern about their ſouls and ſalvation, and are conſequently taking the moſt pains and uſing unwearied endeavours, are uſually the greateſt ſinnes, really more vicious, more guilty and vile, than they were when in a ſtate of ſecurity, and lived in a great meaſure in the neglect of the means of grace. So that the good the ſinner gets by a conſtant attendance on the means of grace, while impenitent, is not a becoming on the whole, leſs vicious or criminal in God's ſight.P. 127. The ſinner's growing really worſe, more guilty and vile the more light he has, and the greater advantages he enjoys, while he continues impenitent, is really no matter of diſcouragement, &c.P. 143.

II. In order to bring the matter into a narrower compaſs, and ſum up the whole in one general propoſition, whereby the ſenſe of the author, ſo far as concerns the preſent debate, may more clearly be ſeen, I deſire the following particulars may be carefully obſerved.

1. That when it is here ſaid, the awakened reformed ſinner is more vile in the ſight of God, than when in a ſtate of ſecurity, it can't be meant only in the ſenſe in which all, even ſaints, considered in themſelves, as well as ſinners, are more vile today than yeſterday, as they are conſtantly adding freſh guilt; but that an awakened reformed ſtate is, ON THE WHOLE, a more ſinful ſtate than that of a ſecure ſinner, i. e. they are more vile than they would have been had they continued ſecure, going on in their ſins. Nor,

2. Can any thing be meant by theſe and the like expreſſions uſed by the author, viz. The ſinner's continuing obſtinately to reject and oppoſe the ſalvation offered in the goſpel, but only his continuing unregenerate under all that conviction; as is manifeſt from the author's own conceſſion,P. 124. and will continue to do ſo, until a new heart be given in regeneration. Nor,

3. Is it here ſaid the awakened ſinner will be more vile and odious to God, when the influence of conviction abates, and he returns to his evil courſes; but in the then preſent tenſe he is' i. e. under the height of all his convictions, reformations and amendments of life; and under the common influences of the ſpirit, While he thinks there is at leaſt a may-be God will be gracious. Nor,

4. Is he ſaid to be a greater ſinner only in a reſpect as his impenitence is continued under greater light; but 'on the whole.' Nor,

5. Is it only ſaid that the awakened convinced ſinner may be a greater ſinner; but that he is, beyond all peradventure, undoubtedly ſo; i. e. conſtantly and unavoidably: So that what is here ſaid is of the nature of a general propoſition. Nor,

6. Is this more ſinful ſtate of awakened ſinners affirmed only in caſe the ſins forſaken are of a leſs heinous nature, but on ſuppoſition they are ever ſo groſs and enormous, whatever particular ways of known ſin, he has forſaken, &c. Nor,

7. Are the convictions of awakened ſinners, here ſpoken of under any reſtriction or limitation, but whatever be the degree, though under the greateſt convictions of conſcience, and the moſt concern about their ſouls, &c. The author indeed begins with what he calls inſtruction, explained by ſpeculative knowledge, and then adds what he terms more than ſpeculation, and finally riſes to all that conviction that the unregenerate are capable of, while ſuch. P. 121—124.

8. All this is ſaid of the ſtate of the awakened compared with that of the ſecure ſinner, under the ſame goſpel and means of external light.

A due regard had to theſe obſervations, the plain ſenſe of the author may be compriſed in this general propoſition, viz. That on every riſing degree of internal light, awakening, conviction and amendment of life, found in any of the unregenerate, while ſuch, they are undoubtedly (on the whole) more vile, odious and abominable in God's ſight, than they would have been had they continued at eaſe, going on in their ſins, under the ſame external means of light.

Having thus, to the beſt of my underſtanding, fairly adjuſted, ſtated, and ſum'd up the ſenſe of the author, I muſt ſay the divinity here exhibited appears to me ſtrange and new, never before advanced in the Chriſtian world by any divine of tolerable ſenſe and reputation, ſo far as my acquaintance reacheth; unleſs ſomething of a like complexion is to be found in the Letters on THERON and ASPASIO, aſcribed to SANDIMAN, who has well-nigh, condemned all other divines to eſtabliſh himſelf and his party as the only true Church of Chriſt upon earth, which, it is ſaid, hath for many ages been concealed in the wilderneſs, but now lately hath, appeared in them; agreeable to other enthuſiaſtick viſionaries.

The Weſtminſter and Savoy Confeſſions both teach, that works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good uſe both to themſelves and others; yet, becauſe they proceed not from an heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore ſinful and cannot pleaſe God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them IS MORE SINFUL and DISPLEASING to God. This laſt clauſe, which, taken in a compound ſenſe, is denied by Mr. Hopkins, they prove by the following ſcriptures. "Therefore they ſay unto God, Depart from us, for we deſire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty that we ſhould ſerve him? and what profit ſhould we have if we pray unto him? Job xxi. 14, 15, compared with Mal. iii. 13, 15. "Then ſhall he ſay unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye curſed! for I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat." &c. "Wo unto you, ſcribes and phariſees! hypocrites! for ye pay tithes of mint, aniſe and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law; judgment, mercy and faith. Theſe ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Which ſcriptures, I ſuppoſe, fully prove the debated clauſe, againſt all the feeble attacks of the enemies of truth and religion.

After the teſtimony of ſo many calviniſtick divines, I need quote no more, unleſs the late preſident Edwards, who will ſerve, I ſuppoſe, inſtead of many with our author, and who is ſo expreſs to the point as if he had wrote on purpoſe to confute the doctrine I am oppoſing. Such things, ſays he,Preſident Edwards on virtue. p. 180, 181. have a negative moral goodneſs in them, becauſe a being without them would be an evidence of a much greater moral evil. Thus, the exerciſe of natural conſcience in ſuch and ſuch degrees, wherein appears ſuch a meaſure of an awakening or ſenſibility of conſcince, tho' it be not of the nature of real poſitive virtue, or true moral goodneſs (that is ſaving grace) yet has a negative moral goodneſs; becauſe in the preſent ſtate of things, it is an evidence of the abſence of that higher degree of wickedneſs which cauſes great inſenſibility or ſtupidity of Conſcience. &c. &c.

Divines indeed of the beſt character and greateſt note have allowed, that ſinners under deep and genuine convictions, converſing more ſenſibly with the wickedneſs of their own hearts and lives, have been ready to look on themſelves as greater ſinners than heretofore, yea perhaps as growing daily worſe, and more hard hearted. However to be ſenſible of ſin and to realize and feel their own badneſs is one thing, and to grow really more hardned and ſtupid is another very different from the former, ſo that the one may be without the other.

But that they really do grow worſe from the firſt degree of internal light and ſenſibility of conſcience; whereby they become all attention to the concerns of their ſalvation, tremble at paſt ſins, reform known evils, and with great concern attend on all known duties; that in this caſe they are in the ſtate of their mind really more vile, odious and abominable in the ſight of God, than when ſecure indulging themſelves in all manner of wickedneſs, under the ſame external means of light, is quite new. And therefore requires the greater caution, not to admit, of other than clear clear and demonſtrative ſcripture evidence and proof for the confirmation of it. To the law and to the teſtimony; if they ſpeak according to this word, we ſhall gladly receive it; but if not we are ſure there is no light, or truth in it. I proceed,

III. To inquire into the proof offered in confirmation of this point; where we have ſeveral texts of ſcripture alledged, as John iii. 19. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſs rather than light. ſo John xv. 22, 24. If I had not come and ſpoken to them, they had not had ſin. and Mat. xi. 20, 24. Then began he to upbraid the cities in which moſt of his mighty works were done; becauſe they repented not. Woe unto thee Chorazin; woe unto thee Bethſaida: for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in ſackcloth and aſhes.

Theſe are the principal texts improved in confirmation of this new doctrine.

I begin with the firſt, This is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſs rather than light.

What is ſaid by the author to enforce the pertinency of this text to prove his point, is, our ſaviour repreſents the light which men have as that which does in a peculiar manner, and above every thing elſe aggravate the ſin and condemnation of thoſe that rebel againſt it.

It is clearly held forth in theſe words, that light is come into the world, that men have preferred darkneſs to it, and are thereby expoſed to a more aggravated condemnation. All this is readily conceeded; but what is it to the author's purpoſe, or, what would it be, ſhould we take in all himſelf hath ſaid upon the text; and explain it in a ſcripture ſenſe? that is underſtand by it the external light of the evidence of the divine miſſion of Chriſt, and ſo of the truth of the goſpel in which ſenſe Chriſt hath taught us to underſtand it; when he ſaith if I had not done among them, the works which none other man did, they had not had ſin. As if Chriſt had ſaid, if I had not ſet before them the external light of the evidence of my divine miſſion, in an objective way, in the works I did, they had not had that ſin of rejecting that light; but now have they both ſeen, and hated both me and my father. As if Chriſt had ſaid, they hated that light objectively ſet before them, in my works, in which my divinity, and in mine the divinity of the father objectively ſhone forth.

But what does all this relate to a convinced, reformed ſinner? thouſands and millions may have rejected this light with ſcoff and deriſion, whereby they have been expoſed to a more aggravated condemnation; and not one of them the ſubject of the preſent debate: becauſe not awakened to any ſenſibility of conſcience, or amendment of life.

Not a word of an awakened reformed ſinner in the text or context, nothing of internal light, or ſenſibility of conſcience, or of any of the effects, that might imply it: nay the character here given, of thoſe ſpoken of is quite the reverſe of an awakened, reformed ſinner, they are ſaid to practice evil, i. e. ſo as the reformed ſinner does not and to ſhun the light, left their evil deeds ſhould be reproved, and they called to part with them.

How therefore this point can be argued from the text, that ſays nothing about it, I muſt leave, and paſs to the ſecond text alledged, viz. if I had not come and ſpoken to them they had not had ſin. i. e. ſays the author, 'their ſin would have been LITTLE OR NOTHING, compared with what it is now.'

Whether the gloſs here put upon the words of our ſaviour, can agree with their true and genuine meaning the reader muſt judge; the following particulars being conſidered.

1. That by thoſe of whom Chriſt ſaith, if I had not come and ſpoken to them, we are here to underſtand the Inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethſaida and Capernaum, or the like cities, where moſt of his mighty works were done.

2. That they were in the ſtate and temper of their minds previous to rejecting the goſpel more wicked than the Inhabitants of thoſe cities even Sodom itſelf: otherwiſe how could it be true, as here aſſerted by Chriſt, that theſe would have repented by the ſame means, which thoſe rejected? and therefore

3. It can't be the meaning of our ſaviour in theſe words, that, their ſin had been little or nothing, if he had not come and ſpoken to them compared with what it is now, ſince it is evident, it was in the unerring opinion of our ſaviour greater than the ſin of Sodom. And ſince this can't be the meaning; another muſt be ſought, which is plainly this, viz. they had not had that ſin of rejecting the clear light of the evidence of the divine miſſion of Chriſt, and ſo of the truth of the goſpel. They indeed had it in their hearts; but it lay conceal'd, hid under the cloak of high pretenſions to ſanctity: but when they acted it out, the cloak fell off, and their wickedneſs appeared to all the world. Hence it is ſaid, 'now have they no cloak for their ſin. This acting out the wickedneſs of their hearts, we readily grant, was an aggravation of their ſin, but how comes it to paſs, that all their ſinfulneſs of Heart and life whereby they were more vile than the Idolatrous heathen, and moſt abominable Sodomites, is little, or nothing, compared with acting it out in this particular? Is the fountain nothing to the ſtreams? the cauſe nothing to the effect? is not this to invert the known and eſtabliſhed rules of reaſoning?

But what ſtill increaſes my ſurprize is, that in the paſſages above quoted from the author, he ſeems to argue, that, the ſinner's being reſtrained from acting out the wickedneſs of his heart in overt acts, is as nothing: but that what he is, in heart is all. whatever particular ways of ſin he has forſaken &c. yet on the whole he is more vile &c.

And now all the wickedneſs of the heart, whereby the ſinner is diſpoſed to the act, if occaſion offers is little or nothing if the overt act is reſtrained. Does the tables being turned, really change the nature of things?—however, ſuppoſe for once, their acting out the wickedneſs of their hearts, in this inſtance was as much more heinous in God's ſight than the wickedneſs of the mind, whereby they were fully diſpoſed to do it, when opportunity and occaſion preſented, as the author pleaſes, what would this be to his purpoſe, ſince the light here reſiſted is merely external, and has no neceſſary relation to, or connexion with an awakened reformed ſinner; and therefore can be of no ſignificancy in the queſtion before us.

I proceed to the third text propoſed, viz. Woe unto thee Chorazin, Woe unto thee Bethſaida; for if the mighty works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, in ſackcloth and aſhes.

What is ſaid to apply this text to the author's purpoſe is and he ſpeaks of the inhabitants of thoſe cities where moſt of his mighty works were done, to whom he moſt frequently preached, and who attended moſt on his miniſtry, and yet continued impenitent as much more guilty and liable to a more awful condemnation, than if they had never enjoyed theſe advantages, nor had this light and inſtruction. What force there is in this text, and what is ſaid by the author, the reader will beſt judge when the following particulars are duly conſidered.

1. It is evident, that in theſe words a compariſon is made between the wickedneſs of Chorazin and Bethſaida, and that of Tyre and Sidon.

2. That that in which their wickedneſs is compared and tryed, is the degree of obduracy of heart and ſtupidity of conſcience, to which they had ſeverally reduced themſelves, by their own wickedneſs, whereby they were more unimpreſſible, by proper motives and arguments, to repentance.

3. The medium choſen by our ſaviour, for the trial and deciſion of this point between them, is a ſuppoſition of the ſame proper arguments and motives to repentance, ſet in the ſame advantageous light before both.

4. That on the trial of this ſingle point, omniſcience being judge, the deciſion comes out againſt Chorazin and Bethſaida—If the mighty works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in ſackcloth and aſhes. I take it for granted here that no more is intended by repentance than legal repentance, or repentance on natural principles, i. e. from natural conſcience greatly awakened to a ſenſe of the majeſty and perfection of God, the evil deſert of ſin, and ſenſe of God's wrath, attended with breaking off from their evil ways, like what, no doubt, was at leaſt more generally the repentance of Nineveh; ſeeing our bleſſed ſaviour infinitely well knew, that neither thoſe means they enjoyed, nor any other as means, could ever bring them to a ſaving repentance, without an almighty power exerted in giving a new heart. As if Chriſt had ſaid, You have, by your own wickedneſs, waſted natural conſcience, ſined away your moral Senſe, and rendered yourſelves more unimpreſſible, by the ſame motives and arguments to repentance, ſet in the ſame advantageous light, than the idolatrous Tyrians and Sidonians: and therefore on that ſingle account, your ſtate is more wicked than theirs, and you juſtly expoſed to a more aggravated condemnation in the day of judgment than they. And now what is there in theſe words of our ſaviour, that has any tendency to the author's purpoſe? Do they prove that ſinners under the goſpel, awakened to a great degree of ſenſibility of conſcience, whatever be their amendment of life, while unregenerate are, on the whole, more wicked in the ſtate of their mind, and so more odious to God, than when ſecure and at eaſe in their ſins? nay, ſo far from it; that they prove quite the reverſe, viz. That the greater degree of their wickedneſs; is to be eſtimated according to the greater degree of their ſtupidity, obduracy and hardneſs of heart, under the ſame external means of grace, as in the inſtance above. This being clearly proved from theſe words of our ſaviour, which is the negative part of the queſtion, can contraries be proved from the ſame words? or can any art of metaphysical reaſoning reverſe what is determined by unerring wiſdom?

But to bring this matter to a cloſe, if any thing further needs to be ſaid; I would argue thus;

If the author's point is evident from theſe texts, it muſt be either from the increaſe of internal light in the conſcience, and the proper effects thereof; ſuch, as a greater ſenſibility of divine things, of the majeſty of God, of the ill deſert of ſin, fears of wrath, concern to eſcape it, reformations of known evils, &c. conſidered in themſelves; or from the abuſe of this light, continuing ſtill unregenerate under it. If it can be made evident at all from theſe texts, it muſt be in one or the other of theſe ways, there being no other way conceivable, by which it may be done.

What I ſhall attempt therefore, ſhall be to ſhew, that it can't be done in either of theſe ways;

1. Not from the increaſe of internal light of divine things let in upon natural conſcience, or any of its proper effects, as above: becauſe theſe, conſidered in themſelves, can't render the ſtate of the unregenerate more ſinful than their abſence, under the ſame external means of light; but really leſs ſo.

Thus a ſenſibility of divine things awakened in natural conſcience, by a greater degree of internal light, ſurely cannot be more ſinful than ignorance and ſtupidity: ſo fears of wrath thence ariſing, concern to eſcape it, reforming known evils and attending known duties. Theſe conſidered in themſelves, can't be more ſinful than their contraries, under the ſame external means of light.

This I take to be clearly held forth by a late celebrated writer, as quoted above, in the 5th page. To the ſame purpoſe we have the author's own conceſſion, in the following words, Their greater ſinfulneſs does not indeed conſiſt in their concern about themſelves, in a ſenſe of the ſad, dangerous ſtate they are in, and in their earneſtly deſiring deliverance and ſafety p. 126

Thus it appears, as I think, with the full conceſſion of the author, that a ſenſibility of conſcience, as above conſidered in itſelf, can't render the ſtate of the awakened reformed ſinner, more vile in the ſight of God, than that of a ſecure profligate, under the ſame external means of light. And therefore if theſe ſcriptures prove the author's point at all, they muſt prove that the abuſe of and ſinning againſt this internal light of conſcience, is that which renders the ſtate of the awakened & reformed ſinner more vile in the ſight of God, than that of a ſecure ſinner.

But how can theſe texts prove this? ſince, as hath been obſerved, they ſay nothing of theſe things, not a word of an awakened reformed ſinner, nothing of internal light and ſenſibility of conſcience; much leſs, if it were poſſible, of awakened ſinners being on the whole worſe under all degrees of riſing convictions and reformation, than in a ſtate of ſecurity, at eaſe in their ſins. Thus all ſhadow of proof of the author's point from theſe texts, ſo far as I am able to diſcern, diſappears.

However the author goes on, by ſuppoſing a conceſſion in theſe Words. None will deny, I truſt, that a living under the goſpel and enjoying the means of grace, is the occaſion of aggravating the ſin and condemnation of thoſe who perſevere in their oppoſition to Jeſus Chriſt. And adds the goſpel proves unto them a ſavour of death unto death. And then proceeds to draw his concluſion; conſequently the more light and conviction men have, while they continue obſtinately to oppoſe light and truth, and reject the offers of the goſpel, i. e. while they continue unregenerate, as the author explains himſelf, the more guilty and vile, and the greater criminals are they in God's ſight, whatever be their reformations of life, &c.

Thus, from a train of reaſonings on a number of ſacred texts, the principle in debate is ſeemingly adduced as a conſequence. But is there one word of it contained in the premiſes? Theſe texts indeed ſpeak of the external light of the evidence of the truth of the goſpel, objectively ſet before the mind: but do they ſay one word of internal light, of awakening conviction, of great concern for ſalvation, or of great reformation and amendment of life? Not a word. How therefore this conſequence ſhould be drawn from theſe premiſes, I am not able to account.

I have thus gone through with the author's proof at large, that every reader might be under advantage to ſee and judge for himſelf. For my own part I am ſo little acquainted with the rules of reaſoning, that I ſhould think it a ſufficient anſwer on the whole, only to ſay, no conſequence, and wait for light.

Were it ever ſo fully conceded, that thoſe that periſh from under the external light of the goſpel, do thereby fall under a more aggravated condemnation; yet this would be nothing to the author's purpoſe: becauſe this may be the caſe with multitudes, that they reject the external light of the evidence of the truth of the goſpel with ſcorn and deriſion, without ever being awakened or reformed by it; ſo the goſpel may be a ſavour of death unto death unto thouſounds that never were one of them a proper ſubject of this debate; becauſe never awakened to reformation and amendment of life.

The author's miſtake in the above reaſoning, as it appears to me, ariſes chiefly from the want of diſtinguiſhing well between the external light of the evidence of the truth of the goſpel, and the internal light of an awakened conſcience; arguing indifferently from one to the other, as tho' they were the ſame in nature, kind, effects and properties; and in all reſpects would bear the ſame predications, reaſonings and concluſions: whereas, tho' they agree in the ſame general nature, ſo as to come under one and the ſame denomination or genus; yet do they eſſentially and ſpecifically differ. The one is external, objectively ſet before the mind; the other is internal and mental. The former is liable to be utterly rejected with contempt, without any influence upon the conſcience or life. The latter is received into the mind, and allowed by the author in this debate, to have great influence on both, to raiſe conviction, and excite reformation and amendment of life, to the higheſt degree the unregenerate are capable of by the common influences of the holy ſpirit. And therefore to argue from the one to the other, as if they were the ſame; the reaſoning muſt needs be inconcluſive.

Again, another miſtaken way in which the author argues his point, as it appears to me, is determining the degree of man's wickedneſs, meerly from the degree of light ſinned againſt, without any regard had to the degree of the ſtrength of his bias to ſin; which muſt needs be inconcluſive, for

1. If this be ſo, there could be no inequality of ſinfulneſs where there is equality of light ſinned againſt; one could not be guilty of abuſing the ſame degree of light more than another; or if he did, would not be more ſinful; which can't be true. And therefore the reaſoning is unſound. Can it once be doubted whether ſome men, under the ſame degree of light, natural or ſupernatural, given up of God to vile affections, are not greater ſinners, more vile and odious in God's ſight, than others? Not becauſe they ſin againſt greater degrees of light; but becauſe, with a higher hand, they abuſe and ſin againſt the ſame degree of light. For inſtance, ſuppoſe A. and B. are favour'd with equal degrees of light, and ſuppoſe B. has three degrees of ſtrength of bias and inclination to ſin, more than A. which there can be no reaſonable doubt may be the caſe; can it once be doubted here, whether B. is more vile and odious in God's ſight than A. ſinning againſt the ſame degree of light? But what clears this point (if I miſtake not) beyond reply, is Chriſt's determination of Chorazin and Bethſaida's being greater ſinners than Tyre and Sydon, on ſuppoſition their light and advantages had been equal, as above.

To this I might add, that on ſuppoſition the grand point on which the author ſeems to lay the chief ſtreſs of his argument, be fully conceded, viz. that he that ſins againſt a greater degree or light, is in that reſpect a greater ſinner; will it thence follow that he is to on the whole? by no means, as ſeen above. Is it found reaſoning to argue from a part to the whole; or from a particular circumſtance, to the whole ſtate of the caſe; termed by the ſchools arguing a dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter? which, at beſt, is but ſophiſtical and inconcluſive. I proceed to the

IV. General head propoſed, which was to offer ſome conſiderations in favour of the negative part of the queſtion, viz. that the awakened reformed ſinner, as above deſcribed, is not undoubtedly, on the whole, more vicious, in the ſtate of his mind, and therefore not ſo in God's ſight, than when ſecure, going on in his ſins. — This is what the following conſiderations are offered to eſtabliſh; and

i. The truth in hand may be argued from the abſurdities which admitting the affirmative part of the queſtion will unavoidably throw us into, as,

1. If the principal advanced be true, there is no poſſibility of the profligate ſinner's becoming leſs vicious, in the ſtate of his mind, whatever be the wickedneſs he lives in the practice of, by any reformation of life, while unregenerate; becauſe reforming in any inſtance, ſuppoſes the increaſe of internal light and ſenſibility of conſcience: and then, according to this new principle, he is undoubtedly, on the whole, more vile, odious and abominable in God's ſight, than he would have been, had he continued ſecure and at eaſe, going on in his ſins. I appeal to the common ſenſe of mankind, is not this ſtrange divinity? What! is there no poſſibility that the drunkard, the thief, the liar, the profane ſwearer, the adulterer, the murderer and blaſphemer ſhould become, on the whole, leſs vicious in God's ſight while unregenerate, by reforming all this atrocious wickedneſs, tho' on no higher principle than that of natural conſcience, awakened by the common influences of the ſpirit, as Ahab was, to a ſenſe of the majeſty and perfections of God, the ill deſert of ſin, and fears of divine wrath, than he would be, continuing in the practice of all this wickedneſs?—Strange abſurdity this!

But what is ſtill more ſtrange, the unregenerate ſinner, on this principle while ſuch, that lives in the practice of all this wickedneſs, as above deſcribed, can't be reformed, even by the common illuminations of the holy ſpirit, but by being, on the whole, more vile, in God's ſight, than he would be in the continued practice of it! becauſe ſuch reformations ſuppoſe the increaſe of internal light and ſenſibility of conſcience!

Thus by ſtrictly following this new principle, we are come to an abſolute certainty that how vicious ſoever the unregenerate may be in the ſtate of their minds, by abandoning themſelves to all manner of wickedneſs, under the goſpel; there is no poſſible way of their becoming on the whole leſs ſo, by any reformation and amendment of life whatsoever, while unregenerate; yea, of their reforming in any inſtance, without being on the whole, more vile in God's ſight.

2. Another abſurdity ariſing from this new principle is, that the more ſtupid, careleſs, and unconcern'd men are under the goſpel, about what ſins they commit and what duties they neglect; the leſs vile, odious and abominable they are on the whole, in God's ſight. This concluſion, however glaring the folly of it, is yet firm and cannot be avoided, if the principle advanced be true. For if the more awakened, reformed and attentive on all known duty ſinners are, under the goſpel, the more vile; it muſt needs follow, that the leſs awakened, reformed and attentive on duty under the ſame goſpel, the leſs vile, odious, and abominable muſt they be, on the whole, in God's ſight.

To illuſtrate this matter and make it plain to the weakeſt capacity, let it be obſerved that the degrees of internal light and ſenſibility of conſcience found in men under the goſpel are various; whence ariſeth a proportional concern to avoid ſin and attend on duty, in order to avoid miſery and obtain happineſs. And ſuppoſe this difference of ſenſibility of conscience in men, relating to theſe things, be divided into ten equal parts or degrees, as it may be conſiſtent with truth; the firſt having very little ſenſe of the majeſty of God and of the ill deſert of ſin, his moral ſenſe being almoſt quite loſt; ſo that the commiſſion of the groſſeſt crimes is well nigh a matter of indifferency with him; the ſecond has one degree more of ſenſibility of conſcience, and ſome care to avoid ſins of the groſſeſt kind; a third riſeth to a ſtill further degree of ſenſibility; and ſo on to the tenth; all equal in other reſpects, brought up under the ſame goſpel, and well indoctrinated. [Here let it be noted, that what is ſaid is not meerly a ſuppoſition, but what agrees with fact; and is really the true ſtate of the caſe.] And now upon this new principle, the firſt who is really moſt hardened in conſcience, and moſt vicious in his practice is leaſt vile and odious in the ſight of God; the ſecond is more ſo; and ſo on to the tenth, who is, in God's ſight the vileſt of all the gang, being in a great degree convinced of the evil of ſin, and of the dreadfulneſs of that wrath to which he ſtands juſtly expoſed, trembles at the thought of his paſt ſins, and in fear left he ſhould offend in thought, word, or deed, feels himſelf a loſt periſhing creature; and that ſovereign mercy only can be his remedy. Thus the poor trembling, convinced, reformed ſinner (I mean as much as an unregenerate ſinner can be ſo) is now, according to this new principle, the moſt odious in God's ſight of the ten; and more ſo, than when being ſtupid, under the ſame external means of light, he wallowed in all manner of moſt abominable wickedneſs. And it muſt needs be ſo, according to this new principle, becauſe he now ſins againſt greater internal light, as in the author's own words, quoted above. Yea, his impenitence and all his ſins are ſo aggravated by the light and convictions he obtains, that whatever particular ways of known ſin he has forſaken, and how many ſoever external duties he attends; yet, on the whole, he is undoubtedly a greater ſinner than when he lived in ſecurity. P. 125.

Thus it appears, according to this new principle, that the only poſſible way, that ſinners indulging themſelves in all manner of vicious and immoral practices, can, even under the goſpel, become on the whole, leſs vicious in the ſtate of their mind, while unregenerate, is by becoming more ſtupid and regardleſs what ſins they commit. It being impoſſible a becoming leſs vicious ſhould be accompliſhed by any conviction or amendment of life; ſince by every ſtep of advance this way, the ſinner is ſaid to be, on the whole, more vile and odious in God's ſight. Nor can he be leſs ſo by ſtanding ſtill; continuing in the ſame ſtate he is in, it is certain can never render him leſs vicious; ſo that the only poſſible way of his becoming on the whole leſs vicious, conſiſtent with this principle, is by a thoughtleſs giving himſelf up to the commiſſion of all manner of wickedneſs, without care or thought. Strange divinity ſtill! Nor is it in my power to doubt, that the grand enemy of Chriſt's cauſe and precious ſouls, puts his hearty Amen to it.

3. Another abſurdity that ariſes from this principle, is, that in an exact proportion, as any one under the goſpel is, in the language of the author, more likely to be ſaved, and, in the phraſe of our ſaviour, "nearer to the kingdom of God," he is on the whole more vile and odious in God's ſight. The author has ſpent many pages in confirming this point [P. 128 to 132] viz. that the more diligent in attending means, and the more inſtruction men get, the more likely it is they will be ſaved; and near as many in aſſerting ſuch are undoubtedly, on the whole, more vile and odious in the ſight of God; ſo that it muſt be a maxim with thoſe of this principle, that the more likely any one, under the goſpel, is to be ſaved, the more vile, odious and abominable he is, on the whole, in the ſight of God.

To illuſtrate this matter, ſuppoſe A. and B. for inſtance, brought up under the ſame light and advantages of the goſpel, A. by early abandoning himſelf to all manner of moſt abominable wickedneſs, hath well nigh utterly ſinned away his conſcience, ſo that it is a matter of indifferency with him now, to blaſpheme God, or innocently jeſt with a neighbour. B. from early childhood, has conſtantly paid ſuch reverence and obedience to the dictates of conſcience, as hath nouriſhed the greateſt degree of tenderneſs, to regard all duty and avoid all ſin, that can agree to an unregenerate ſtate. It is here allowed that B. is more likely to be ſaved than A. but then it is equally maintained, that in the ſame proportion that B. is more likely to be ſaved, he is on the whole more wicked, a murderous, blaſphemous A. A, can on this principle, ſcarcely be denominated a ſinner at all; to be ſure he is nothing of a ſinner compared with B. who has all his life time been trained up to that tenderneſs of conſcience, in a great meaſure, to avoid known ſin and practiſe known duty, that renders him on the whole in God's ſight, the moſt vile, odious and abominable ſinner on the face of the whole earth.

The like conſequence is unavoidable, for any thing I can ſee, if this principle be carried into the Heathen world. He that makes the greateſt improvements on the light of nature, in diſcovering the being and attributes of God, the immortality of the ſoul, the ill deſert of ſin, &c. and comes up neareſt to the dictates of conſcience, in the moral life (ſuppoſe an Epictetus) he is the vileſt of all the heathen world; becauſe in failing to come up to his duty, he ſins againſt the greateſt light.

It is needleſs to obſerve here that theſe things never did agree to the common ſenſe of mankind; or of the Chriſtian world; and to my weak underſtanding, I muſt ſay they ſound too ſtrange to be true. However, to avoid all partiality, I appeal to the attentive impartial reader,

1. Whether theſe be not abſurdities by no means to be admitted in divinity? And,

2. Whether it is poſſible to avoid them, the principle advanced, being admitted?

I might here go on to multiply the like obſervations, but that in my humble opinion theſe hints are ſufficient to exclude a doctrine that never yet was admitted into the chriſtian creed, and muſt (if ever it be) come in with a train of bad company.

ii. The point in hand may be argued from ſundry texts of ſcripture; of which two only ſhall be mentioned here.

1. The men of Nineveh ſhall riſe in judgment with this generation, and ſhall condemn it; becauſe they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas is here; Matt. 12. 41. i. e. the repentance of the Ninevites, under the preaching of Jonas, ſhall condemn, in the day of judgment, the want of that repentance in the Jews, under the preaching of Chriſt.

Now if the Ninevites repentance, as it is on good grounds generally conceded, (as hath been hinted before) was but repentance on principles of nature; natural conſcience being awakened to a ſenſe of the dreadful majeſty of God ſinned againſt, and ſo of the dreadful deſert of ſin, convinced of the imminent danger they were in of impending ruin threatened, moved only by fear, they humbled themſelves before God, broke off their ſins and "turned from their evil way," as God witneſſeth they did, Jon. 2, 10. If, I ſay, all this was upon natural principles, being unregenerate as to the body of that vaſt people, as was undoubtedly the caſe,Not only from what hath been already ſaid on this head, but becauſe, on a contrary ſuppoſition, the work of God muſt have been far more glorious there; than on the out-pouring of the ſpirit on the day of Pentecoſt. And not only ſo, but it muſt, it ſeems, have been altogether miraculous, as they were in the depth of heatheniſh darkneſs, and for any thing we know, had not ſo much as the name of a Mediator, to be believed on among them; and ſo had no foundation for that repentance which accompanies or flows from faith. Nor is it conceivable but that, had it been of a gracious nature, it had been named in all afer generations as ſuch. it muſt I think from this inſtance appear exceeding clear, that the awakened reformed ſinner is not, on the whole, undoubtedly more vile in God's ſight, than the harden'd and ſecure, going on in his fins; for if ſo, how could the repentance of the Ninevites, which was but an awakened reformed ſtate, condemn in the day of judgment the want of that repentance in the hardened Jews, obſtinately perſiſting in their ſins, under at leaſt equal advantages by Chriſt.

2. Another text from which the truth before us may be argued, is Chriſt's declaration to the ſcribe, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Which is evidently ſaid with a view to his reply to Chriſt's anſwer to that queſtion, What is the first commandment of all? v. 28. Chriſt's anſwer follows; to which the ſcribe replies, Well, maſter, thou haſt ſaid the truths, &c. And when Jeſus ſaw that he anſwered diſcreetly, i. e. diſcover'd ſoundneſs in doctrine, a freedom from that groſs ignorance, prejudice, and bitterneſs againſt the doctrine and perſon of Chriſt, that many others diſcovered. In the view of theſe things, by which he was, in the ſtate of his mind, leſs vicious, Chriſt pronounceth him not far from the kingdom of God, i. e. not at ſo great a remove from the ſtate of a good man.

In order to our further confirmation that this, for ſubſtance, is the true meaning of theſe words, the following particulars may be obſerved,

1. That by the kingdom of God here is meant a ſtate of grace; the ſtate of a good man, in whoſe heart the inviſible kingdom of grace is ſet up; that kingdom we are exhorted to ſeek firſt, Matt. 6, 33; and which is ſaid to be taken by violence, Matt. 11, 12.

2dly, The phraſe here made uſe of (not far from the kingdom of God) is not to be underſtood as relating to the time of the ſcribe's converſion, or being brought into a ſtate of grace; ſince ſo underſtood, it is of the nature of a prophecy, that reveals the certainty of his converſion, and that the time was now nigh: in which ſenſe I ſuppoſe none underſtand it: it muſt therefore be underſtood to be a nighneſs in ſtate to that of a good man. As Epaphroditus is ſaid to be ſick, nigh unto death (Phi. 2, 27) not to the time of his dying; for he did not die by that ſickneſs; but was brought low, and in ſtate nigh unto death: ſo there were many deſirable things found in the ſcribe, not that were holy or ſpiritual; yet such as rendered him leſs ſinful than thoſe who were deſtitute of his attainments; and leſs ſo than himſelf would have been in their abſence; and ſuch as are ordinarily neceſſary, in order to being brought into a ſtate of grace; in the view of which, as being leſs ſinful in the ſtate of his mind, he is here pronounced not far from the kingdom of God, i. e. as explained, in ſtate, not ſo far from that of a good man, comparatively ſpeaking, as thoſe who remained under the power of that ignorance, prejudice and ſtupidity, from which he was in a meaſure freed.

But what thoſe things are, by which he was leſs ſinful in the ſtate of his mind, and nearer to that of a good man, may be clearly ſeen in the ſcribes reply — Well, maſter, thou haſt ſaid the truth: for there is one God, and there is none other but he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the underſtanding, and with all the ſoul, and with all the ſtrength, and to love his neighbour as himſelf, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and ſacrifices. And when Jeſus ſaw that he anſwered diſcreetly, i. e. diſcovered a good underſtanding of that in which the ſubſtance of all religion greatly conſiſts, diſtinguiſhed well between meer poſitives, and duties of a moral nature, and that he was in a great degree free from that ignorance, ſtupidity, rancour, malice and prejudice againſt the doctrine and perſon of Chriſt, that ſo ſtrongly poſſeſſed the minds, and with ſo much rage was acted out by others; in compariſon with whom he is here no doubt pronounced not far from the kingdom of God.

From the words thus explained it appears,

1. That there is ſuch a thing among the unregenerate under the goſpel, as being in ſtate nigh to and far from the kingdom of God; witneſs what is here pronounced of the ſcribe, as explained above.

2. That their nearneſs in ſtate to the kingdom of God, or which is the ſame, to that of a good man, conſiſts in thoſe attainments whereby they were, on the whole, in the ſtate of their minds, leſs vicious than either themſelves or others would be in the abſence of thoſe things. This hath been clearly ſeen in thoſe attainments in the view and on the account of which 'tis evident the ſcribe is here pronounced not far from the kingdom of God, as explained above. And indeed it could not agree to the purity of God's nature, to pronounce one nigh in ſtate to that of a good man, in compariſon of another, unleſs that one was on the whole, in the ſtate of his mind, leſs vicious than the other; becauſe it would not be true. This is as evident, as it is that there are degrees of ſinfulneſs found with the unregenerate under the goſpel, and that every leſs degree found in any one, brings them in ſtate one degree nearer to that of a good man. Hence it may be concluſively argued from theſe words (the explanation above being allowed) that all awakened reformed ſinners under the goſpel are not, on the whole, more vile in God's ſight, than when ſecure and at eaſe, going on in their ſins under the ſame external means of light; inſtance the ſcribe in the text, of whom the contrary is witneſſed by our ſaviour.

To ſum up this argument in brief, it ſtands thus. By this phraſe of our ſaviour (Thou art not far from the kingdom of God) is meant either,

1. That he was nigh to the time of his converſion, or,

2. That he was meerly more likely to be converted without reſpect had to any of thoſe things, by which, conſidered in themſelves, he was leſs ſinful; or,

3. That he was nigh in ſtate to that of a good man on the account of thoſe attainments by which, conſidered in themſelves, he was leſs ſinful in the ſtate of his mind.

One or the other of theſe, it ſeems, muſt be the true ſenſe of this phraſe. As to the firſt, none I truſt will fix on that. The ſecond is untrue, ſince 'tis evident, from the expreſs letter of the ſacred text, that in what is ſaid of the ſcribe's being nigh or not far from the kingdom of God, reſpect is had to thoſe things and thoſe only, by which, conſidered in themſelves, he was leſs ſinful. And therefore the third muſt be the true and genuine ſenſe of this phraſe.

Thus it appears, from this ſingle inſtance, fairly underſtood, that ſinners awakened to a diligent attendance on means, brought in a meaſure to a rectified judgment relating to divine truth, to abate in their prejudice againſt it and reform known evils, are not always more vile and odious in God's ſight, than they would have been had they continued more ignorant, ſtupid and prejudiced againſt the truth, indulging themſelves in all manner of wickedneſs, under the ſame external means of light.

I. I ſhall reſume the conſideration of what has been touched upon, under a former head, viz. that the grand queſtion, on the reſolution of which this whole controverſy muſt finally turn, is whether the additional ſin, attending continued impenitence under the clear light of the goſpel, ariſing meerly from that ſenſibility of conſcience, whereby the awakened ſinner reforms all known ſin, even the moſt enormous wickedneſs, ſuch as fornication, adultery, &c. is more vile and odious in God's ſight, than great ſtupidity and hardneſs of heart, together with the daring practice of all that enormous wickedneſs as above, which agrees to and naturally flows from a hardened ſtate under the goſpel.

It hath already been clearly evinced, that this ſenſibility of conſcience, with the fruits thereof, ſuch as a ſenſe of the ill deſert of ſin, fear of puniſhment, concern to eſcape it, reforming known evils, &c. conſidered in themſelves, can't render the ſinner more vile in the ſight of God, than their abſence, becauſe at leaſt of a negative moral goodneſs in them; ſo that the only point to be tried is here fairly expoſed. If therefore the additional ſin or aggravation attending continued impenitence, under the clear light of the goſpel, ariſing meerly from that ſenſibility of conſcience, as above, is more vile and odious in the ſight of God, than great ſtupidity and hardneſs of heart, attending continued impenitence under the ſame external means of light, together with the dreadful practice of all that enormous wickedneſs, as above, preſumptuouſly committed, not againſt the light of God's word only, but againſt the clear dictates of natural conſcience, which agrees to and naturally flows from ſuch a hardened ſtate under the goſpel; then the deciſion is in favour of the affirmative part of the queſtion; otherwiſe of the negative.

Objection. If it be objected here, that ſinners, before awakened, are not wont to practiſe theſe heinous crimes; and therefore the awakened ſinner's avoiding or the ſtupid ſinner's practiſing them, is not to be pleaded. I anſwer, the univerſal term uſed by the author, as ſeen above, does, and was doubtleſs deſigned to comprehend all, without exception that might be practis'd by the ſtupid; and reform'd by the awakened. And that this may be, and ſometimes is the caſe, as repreſented above, ſtrictly agrees to the ſcripture account, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor effeminate, nor abuſers of themſelves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; and ſuch were ſome of you; but ye are waſhed, but ye an ſanctified, &c.

And now having ſet this matter in a fair light, I will dare to appeal to the judicious reader, whether it ben't moſt apparent on the very mention of the caſe, ſet in a true light, that no ſuch heinouſneſs can be found in the ſin called additional to impenitence continued under the clear light of the goſpel, ariſing meerly from that ſenſibility, whereby the awakened ſinner is reformed, that will ever ballance the heinous wickedneſs of a great degree of ſtupidity and hardneſs of heart, attending impenitence under the ſame external means of light, together with the dreadful practice of all that enormous wickedneſs, as above preſumptuouſly committed, not only againſt the light of God's word, but againſt the clear dictates of natural conſcience, and which naturally flows from ſuch a hardened ſtate under the goſpel; eſpecially the following particulars being duly conſidered;

1. That the intire reaſon, at leaſt in ſome inſtances, why the ſecure ſinner has leſs internal light and tenderneſs of conſcience, than the awakened and reformed, is becauſe the ſecure has waſted and ſinned away the light of his conſcience more than the reformed, both being under the ſame external means of light. And ſhall the reformed ſinner, who has nouriſhed the internal light and tenderneſs of his conſcience, be more vile in God's ſight, on the whole, than the profligate, who by a courſe of more heinous wickedneſs has greatly abated the degree of light and tenderneſs of his conſcience?

2. That this point is already determined by our ſaviour as ſeen above, page 12; where it is clearly ſhewed that the degree of wickedneſs in Chorazin and Bethſaida above that of Tyre and Sidon, conſiſted in a greater degree of ſtupidity and hardneſs of heart in the former, whereby they were more unimpreſſable than the latter, the ſame external means and advantages to repent being ſuppoſed.

However, for the ſake of clearing this point to the weakeſt underſtanding, I proceed to enquire,

iv. Of what account theſe characters are with the bleſſed God. Here removing as far as poſſible from all abſtruſe metaphyſical reaſoning and far-fetch'd conſequences, at leaſt doubtful and uncertain; of which kind, experience teacheth, that what is called demonſtration in one age, is rejected in another; and what is called ſo by one man, is of no validity with another; and oft'times with the ſame man in different dates of his life; let us, I ſay, removing as far as poſſible from theſe things, impartially enquire of what account theſe different characters of men, are with the bleſſed God; and how he treats them, both in his word and providence, viz. that of the awakened ſinner, brought, tho' on principles of nature, to humble himſelf before God, repent, reform known evils, and conſcientiouſly attend known duties; and that of the ſtout-hearted, bold, daring, hardened ſinner, that obſtinately perſiſts in all manner of vicious and immoral practices, under the ſame external means of light, and againſt the clear dictates of his conſcience.

If we can find clearly of what account theſe characters are with the omniſcient God, compared with each other; and how he treats them, both in his word and providence; we ſhall find what they really are, conſidered in themſelves; and a more ſure ground to form our judgment concerning them, than all our weak reaſonings can otherwiſe furniſh us with. I ſhall therefore touch on a few inſtances of each kind, as exhibited in the holy ſcriptures.

And,

1. Relating to the awakened, humbled, reformed ſinner, I begin with that famous inſtance we have in king Ahab, a none-ſuch for wickedneſs; yet when that terrible meſſage was delivered him by the prophet, it is ſaid, He rent his cloaths, put ſackcloth on his fleſh and faſted, &c. Of which the Lord takes this favourable notice, and defers the evil threatned; Seeſt thou how Ahab humbleth himſelf before me? Becauſe he humbleth himſelf before me, I will not bring the evil in his days.K. xxi. 25,—29.

Now can any one imagine, according to the principle advanced, that Ahab was, on the whole, more vile and odious to God, when he thus humbled himſelf before him, and walk'd ſoftly, i. e. was leſs bold and daring in his wickedneſs, than if he had been leſs ſenſible of his ſin, and more regardleſs of God's threatnings? How can this be? when God ſaith, becauſe he humbleth himſelf before me, &c.

A like inſtance we have in Jehu's zeal in executing the commandment of the Lord upon the houſe of Ahab. And the Lord ſaid unto Jehu, becauſe thou haſt done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and haſt done unto the houſe of Ahab, according to all that was in mine heart; thy children of the fourth generation ſhall ſit on the throne of Iſrael. But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Iſrael.

Is it not evident here, from God's expreſs approbation, and the bestowment of ſo great, tho' outward favour, becauſe he had done well, that in God's account, his obedience, tho' but the matter of duty, upon principles of nature, was leſs wicked than a total diſregard to God's command would have been?

Another inſtance is that of the children of Iſrael, when awakened by the terrifying manner of the giving of the law, being uttered by the voice of God, out of the midſt of the fire. They ſaid to Moſes, ſpeak thou unto us, all that the Lord our God ſhall ſpeak unto thee, and we will hear it and do it. And the Lord ſaid unto Moſes, I have heard the voice of the words which they have spoken unto thee: they have well ſaid, all they have ſpoken.Deut. v. 27, 28. And here again, is it not evident from God's expreſs approbation, that in his account they were leſs vile, expreſſing this ſenſibility of conſcience, and purpoſe of obedience on this awful awakening occaſion, than they would have been, had they remained under the power of ſtupidity, and ſaid with Pharaoh, Who is the Lord, that we ſhould obey his voice? Again,

Another inſtance, not the leaſt of all famous, is that of Nineveh, an exceeding great city, in which, 'tis ſaid, were more than fix ſcore thouſand perſons that knew not their right hand from their left; and, perhaps, more than 6 times that number in the whole. Upon being warned by the preaching of Jonah, that in forty days Nineveh ſhould be deſtroyed: It is ſaid, the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a faſt; the king's decree went forth, forbiding man or beaſt to taſte any thing; but to be covered with ſackcloth, cry mightily to God, and turn every one from the evil of his ways, and from the violence that is in their hands. Whereupon, it is ſaid, God ſaw their works, that they turned from their evil ways; and God repented of the evil that he ſaid he would do unto them, and did it not. Jon. iii.

I take it for granted here, we have no warrant from reaſon or ſcripture, once to imagine their prayers, humiliations and reformations were acted upon higher princples than thoſe of natural conſcience, awakened to a ſenſe of their ſin and danger, at leaſt as to the body of that vaſt people. For tho' it is here ſaid, they believed God, and elſewhere, they repented; it is well known that theſe expreſſions are frequently uſed in ſcripture, to ſignify but ſemblances of theſe graces, as Judas repented, and the devils believed and trembled, and Simon Magus believed.

Since therefore, there is no ſufficient reaſon to conclude the repentance of the Ninevites proceeded from a principle of ſaving grace; and ſince ſo great ſalvation is beſtowed out of reſpect to it: Is it not evident, that in God's account, they were not more vile than if they had continued altogether ſecure and unaffected under the warning? Their repentance was made the only condition of their great ſalvation. And can it agree to the purity of God's nature, to make a greater degree of wickedneſs, on the whole, the condition of beſtowing a great ſalvation tho' of an outward nature? Sure it cannot, ſince this would be to manifeſt ſome regard to ſin, and encourage men to practice it with boldneſs.

Again, that the awakened, reformed ſinner, is leſs vile in God's account, than the ſtupid and unreformed under the ſame external means of light, is clearly held forth in thoſe words of our Saviour. When the unclean ſpirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, ſeeking reſt, and findeth none. Then he ſaith, I will return into my houſe, from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, ſwept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with him ſeven other ſpirits more wicked than himſelf, and they enter in and dwell there: and the laſt ſtate of that man is worſe than the firſt. By the houſe empty, ſwept and garniſhed, is repreſented the ſtate of an awakened, reformed ſinner, when wickedneſs as to the actings of it is reſtrained, the unclean ſpirit gone out. By his return with ſeven other ſpirits more wicked than himſelf entering in, and dwelling there, is repreſented the more deſperate wicked ſtate, to which he is reduced on the abatement of his conviction, returning with further degrees of contracted hardneſs of heart to the unreſtrained practice of mere deſperate degrees of wickedneſs. Now 'tis expreſsly affirmed, that the laſt ſtate of that man is WORSE than the firſt.Matt. xii. 43—45. This alſo is applied to the jewiſh nation, even ſo ſhall it be alſo with this wicked generation: i. e. they who were awakened, brought to conſider, and in a meaſure to amend their lives by the preaching of John Baptiſt, Chriſt and his apoſtles, and by the mighty works done among them, but finally hardened their hearts, and rejected the cleareſt light and evidence of the truth; thereby ripened themſelves for a more aggravated condemnation, and brought the wrath of God upon them to the uttermoſt, in their final deſtruction by the Romans. This deſtruction came upon them for their crying, viſible ſins, extreme hardneſs of heart, and open unbelief, and contemptuous rejection of Chriſt, and not merely for their unregeneracy under continued convictions and reformations.

By all which, it is evident they were in God's account leſs wicked while they retained ſome tenderneſs of conſcience, and were in a meaſure reſtrained from the out breakings of wickedneſs, repreſented by the unclean ſpirit going out of them, than when they being given up to the hardneſs of their hearts, abandoned themſelves to all manner of moſt deſperate and unheard of wickedneſs, repreſented by the return of the unclean ſpirit, &c.

Another inſtance is that of our Saviour's reſpect, expreſt to the young man, on whoſe declaration of his having obſerv'd the commandments from his youth, 'tis ſaid, "Chriſt beholding him, loved him."Mark x. 3 • .

Now whatever diſputes may be railed on theſe words; two things, I ſuppoſe, will be allowed by all,

1. That he was a perſon of an externally moral and amiable converſation; one that had in a great degree eſcaped the pollution of the world.

2. That on that account, Chriſt ſhewed him reſpect, at leaſt as being leſs vile, than if he had under his religious advantages continued in greater degrees of ſtupidity, and lived in the open violation of all God's commandments.

Again, the ſame truth is clearly held forth by the apoſtle Peter, where he tells us, If after they have eſcaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, they are again entangled therein, and overcome; the latter end is worſe with them than the beginning. Is it not plainly implied in theſe words, that while he is not again intangled, and overcome with the pollutions of the world, i. e. continues to eſcape them, he is leſs vile? The apoſtle concludes this argument, by comparing the ſtate of an awakened, reformed ſinner, while he eſcapes the pollutions of the world, i. e. more enormous and groſs wickedneſs, to that of a ſow waſhed from her filthineſs; and the ſtate of one returning again to groſs wickedneſs, to that of the ſame ſow returning to her wallowing in the mire. The difference here made by the Holy Ghoſt, in favour of the former, is very ſenſible. For tho' the ſow waſhed be not changed in her nature; yet in that ſtate ſhe differs much from herſelf wallowing in the mire.

Are not theſe as clear indications, as can well be given by words, that the account the bleſſed God makes of theſe different characters of men, under the means of grace, is in favour of the negative part of the queſtion?

On the other hand, if we enquire,

2nd. Of what account with the bleſſed God the character of the ſecure, bold, preſumptuous, hardened ſinner is, who obſtinately perſiſts in vicious and immoral practices; what ſhall we find throughout the ſcriptures, but the wrath of God burning againſt ſuch, either in tremendous threats, or executions of his judgments?

i. The threats are expreſt in theſe terms or the like; He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, ſhall ſuddenly be deſtroyed, and that without remedy.Pro. xxix. I. The ſoul that doeth ought presumptuously ſhall be cut off.Num. xv. 30. Wo to ſinners that are at eaſe in Zion.Amos vi. 1. For when they ſhall ſay peace and ſafety, then ſudden deſtruction cometh upon them, as travil upon a woman with child; and they ſhall not eſcape.2 Theſ. v. 3. God ſhall wound the hairy ſcalp or ſuch a one as goeth on ſtill in his treſpaſſes.Pſal. lxviii. 21. And it come to paſs, when he heareth the words of this curſe, that he bleſſeth himſelf , in his heart, ſaying, I ſhall have peace, tho' I walk in the imagination of my heart: the Lord will not ſpare him; but then the anger of the Lord, and his jealouſy ſhall ſmoke againſt that man, and all the curſes that are written in this book ſhall lie upon him, and the Lord ſhall blot out his name from under heaven. Dut. xxiv. 19.

Thus I might go on to multiply the threats of God's word, particularly pointed againſt perſons of this character, that go on in an unconcerned indulgence of immoral practices.

Should it be objected here, that eternal damnation is every where threatened the impenitent, and unbelieving, how much ſo ever reformed, which contains in it infinitely more than all the outward judgments threatened above. I anſwer: This is nothing to the preſent argument; becauſe this condemnation falls at leaſt equally, on the profligate, ſince he is equally guilty of impenitence and unbelief, as it does on the reformed; and ſo hath nothing in it, quite nothing to ballance the peculiar marks of God's diſpleaſure againſt the ſecure, vicious and immoral, contained in thoſe threats above; and therefore the argument from them ſtands good, that in God's account, the awakened and reformed are leſs, to be ſure not more, vile and odious, than thoſe of a contrary character. Since he hath not diſplayed againſt them ſuch dreadful tokens of his hatred and diſpleaſure, as againſt the viſibly prophane, how can any mortal prove they are more odious to him?

ii. That which further confirms the preſent argument, is the grounds every where aſſigned, of the execution of God's wrath, in the way of his providence, correſpondent with the threatenings of his word; which if enquired into, will be found, not meerly to be the wickedneſs of continued impenitence, under great degrees of conviction and tenderneſs of conſcience exciting to great concern to avoid all known ſin, and practiſe all known duty: but intirely the reverſe, great ſtupidity, with the effects thence naturally ariſing; ſuch as a bold, daring commiſſion of all abominable wickedneſs.—What was it that brought God's wrath upon the old world, when a deluge of water ſwept off it's inhabitants? Was it not, that they were drowned in a flood of ſenſuality? That the wickedneſs of man was great, that all fleſh had corrupted his way, and filled the earth with violence?

What was it that: brought ſhowers of fire upon Sodom, but the unutterable height of their ſtupidity and outrageous wickedneſs, burning in their unnatural luſts one towards another?

How were God's judgments executed upon Pharaoh? Was it meerly for the want of gracious ſincerity, in acknowledging the true God, and conſenting to let Iſrael go; or the total want of all ſenſibility of natural conſcience reſiſting the evidence of a ſeven-fold demonſtration, that the demands made upon him, were the demands of the living and true God, and ſaying, Who is the Lord, that I ſhould obey his voice? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Iſrael go.—Again, What were the grounds of God's controverſy with Iſrael his covenant people, and of all thoſe judgments firſt and laſt executed upon them? Was it the want of a gracious ſincerity, in keeping up the profeſſion of one living and true God, and in their attendance on his worſhip and ordinances, and obſervance of his laws? Quite the reverſe: They openly forſook God, his ordinances and worſhip, and gave themſelves up to gross idolatry, worſhipped the hoſt of heaven, and cauſed their ſons and daughters to paſs through the fire, uſed divination and inchantments, and ſold themſelves to do evil in the ſight of the Lord.2 • . xvii. 16,-18. Amos v. 26. This is expreſsly aſſigned as the reaſon of the removal of the ten tribes by the king of Aſſyria.

The like charge lies againſt Judah, as the grounds of their removal into Babylon. Will ye (ſays the prophet Jeremiah) ſteal, murder, commit adultery, and ſwear falſely, and burn incenſe to Baal, and walk after other Gods, whom ye know not.Jer. Vii, on to the 20th.

And the like deſperate wickedneſs, increaſed to an amazing degree, was found againſt them, as the grounds of that unparallel'd deſtruction, that finally came upon them by the Romans. So that it is as evident as any thing in the bible, that great hardneſs of heart acted out by open ſins in the life, is moſt odious to God, having been puniſhed with moſt ſeverity.

Having thus briefly hinted a few things, which in my humble opinion, are more than barely ſufficient to point out how the bleſſed God looks upon, and treats theſe different characters of men under conſideration.

I now appeal to the impartial and judicious reader,

i. Whether it be not evident beyond heſitation, that the awakened, reformed ſinner, as above deſcribed, is leſs, to be ſure, not more vile and odious in God's ſight, than the ſtupid and unreformed, under the ſame external means of light? And if ſo,

ii. Whether it be not equally evident, that he is on the whole, really ſo; ſince the great God, from his infinite perfections, can't but look things through, and make account of them, as being what, on the whole, they really are?

The concurring voice of God, in his word and providence, in the old and new teſtament, relating to his covenant people in all ages, the gentile world, and in ſo great a variety, as to particular perſons, thus clearly in favour of the negative, is in my humble opinion, of greater weight, than all uncertain concluſions to the contrary, from human reaſonings.

Should it be objected here, that the premiſes advanced being allowed, yet the concluſion aimed at, does not follow.

All I ſhall reply, as a concluſion under this general head, is a ſolemn appeal to all that are ſerious, learned and unlearned, whether there is not evidently a natural tendency in the concurring voice of God, as above, to perſuade men into a favourable opinion of the negative? And if ſo, Whether it be poſſible it ſhould be otherwiſe than true, ſince nothing is more impoſſible, than that the eſſential rectitude and purity of God's nature ſhould do that, which hath a natural tendency to lead his creatures into errors and deception. I proceed,

V. As was propoſed, to touch briefly on ſome particular paſſages, which to me appear liable to exception, as not being clear from the holy ſcriptures.

The ſubject propoſed by the author, to be treated under this ſection, is expreſſed in the following words, viz: Of the end and deſign of means, and the true ground of encouragement for men to be in the diligent uſe of them, in order to their ſalvation. Three queſtions are here conſidered. Queſ. I. What are the means of grace and ſalvation, and what is meant by uſing theſe means?

After many things ſaid under this head, the author proceeds to point out ſeveral things, which he ſaith, are in a more remote ſenſe the means of grace and ſalvation. Among which it is ſaid, Such in a peculiar manner is divine revelation; and all thoſe inſtitutions and appointments therein to be attended on by men; ſuch as reading the bible, publick and private inſtructions, religious converſation, ſerious meditations on divine things, &c. and particularly PRAYER, which is the moſt ſolemn way of meditating on divine truths. It ſeems here, after all that is ſaid by the author, we are left intirely to our own gueſs, to determine whether it be the duty of the unregenerate, as a means among others, to pray for regenerating grace.

The author indeed once mentions prayer in capitals, as an inſtitution contained in the word of God, to be attended on by men. But then what is ſaid in confirmation of it, is, that it is the moſt ſolemn way of meditating on divine truth, &c. So that it ſeems rather mentioned under the notion of a ſolemn way of meditation, than as prayer. Nor is this duty enforced by the author on the unregenerate, as attendance on the means of inſtruction is. Where he thus argues God's uſing means with men for their inſtruction, ſupposſes the propriety and importance of attending on theſe means. But the duty of prayer can't be enforced on the unregerate in this way, unleſs it be firſt made evident from the word of God, that prayer is the duty of the unregenerate; which the author carefully avoids ſo much as to attempt, thro' this whole diſcourſe.

Thus it appears, that one of the grand points that hath of late been ſo much debated, and about which much enquiry has been made, viz. Whether prayer be the duty of the unregenerate, as a means, among others, to be attended on, in order to obtain regenerating grace, is left looſe and undeterminate in this diſcourſe; and ſo in favour of thoſe that deny it.Which by the way is a plain reaſon why thoſe, ſaid to have imbibed ſome new principles in divinity, ſo generally expreſs their ſatisfaction with what is here written.

Should it be ſuppoſed here, (as ſome may plead) that the authors deſign was to fix the duty of prayer upon the unregenerate, as above; and that it is fairly ſo to be underſtood, tho' his expreſſions are not ſo full as might be.

I aſk leave to enquire, how this can be ſuppoſed, conſiſtent with ſuch things as theſe following:

1. His not ſo much as once expreſſly aſſerting it, on ſo ſpecial an occaſion, when many had denied it to be the duty of the unregenerate, to pray for regenerating grace: Others doubted, whether it was ſafe to direct ſouls, in diſtreſs, to this duty; many were tempted wholly to neglect it; ſome owned the duty, but then inſiſted it muſt be performed in faith: A thing as impoſſible, in nature, as for the ſame thing to be, and not to be at the ſame time; not only becauſe faith implies regeneration, but alſo becauſe there is no promiſe for the unregenerate to ground their faith upon, as the author has abundantly proved.

Others confine the unregenerate's ſeeking for grace, to what they call the goſpel way, meaning the ſame thing as above, as is evident, when they explain themſelves.

The well known arguments, here urged by thoſe who denied the duty of prayer, as above, are ſuch as theſe. Bring no more vain oblations. Does God require a ſham? Does he require hypocriſy and ſin?—Of theſe things, and ſo of all this confuſion, we have good aſſurance, the author was well acquainted, when he wrote; not only becauſe they were in the moſt open and publick manner, from time to time, debated and acted upon; but from the author's own words ſpeaking of the queſtion to be conſidered in this ſection, he obſerves, It is an important one, and one about which there is perhaps more enquiry and diſpute now, than ever there has been before.Preface p. 8. Accordingly he makes this one ground of his treating on the ſubject.

If therefore the author had deſign'd to confirm the duty of prayer on the unregenerate, as above, he had undoubtedly expreſſly and plumply ſpoke it out here. nor,

2. Does admitting this ſuppoſition well agree with the author's not adducing any ſingle text or ſcripture argument, to prove the point; when the ſcriptures abound perhaps as much with commands to the unregenerate to pray, as to refrain from any immorality, or practiſe any moral duty? Is not the whole of every moral duty required of every man? And can it once be imagined, when the whole and every part, as well the matter as manner of duty is required, that a diſability or failure in one point thro' moral impotency diſcharges our obligation to the other? Sure it cannot. Was it ever doubted, whether unregenerate men are obliged, by God's law, to refrain from external acts of murder and adultery, and to practiſe external juſtice and charity, tho' deſtitute of a gracious principle? And are not theſe as much required to be done in a gracious manner as prayer? And is not prayer in general, as much a moral duty of the firſt table, as juſtice and charity of the ſecond? Should it be ſaid here, that the goſpel direction, how to pray aright through the mediator, is poſſitive? And is not direction how to perform all other duties aright equally ſo? Again, does the goſpel direction, how to perform moral duties aright, thereby make any one of theſe duties void? If therefore the author had deſigned to confirm this point; he had doubtleſs offered ſome conſiderations, holding forth from the word of God, that it is the duty of the unregenerate, to pray for regenerating grace. But,

3. That which puts this matter beyond all doubt, is, that the author, not only does not on this moſt ſpecial occaſion, ſo much as expreſsly aſſert, 'tis the duty of the unregenerate to pray, much leſs urge it, from the ſcriptures; but with much labour endeavours to give theſe texts thought to favour it, and more generally uſed to that purpoſe by calviniſt divines, ſo far as I am acquainted, ſuch an interpretation, as is inconſiſtent with their having any reſpect to the unregenerate. At the ſame time, he deſires it may be obſerv'd, that the queſtion now in debate, betwixt him and Dr. Mayhew, does not turn upon the interpretation of this text; for let it (ſays he) be underſtood in either of the ſenſes above mentioned, it makes nothing for the Doctor's premiſes, &c. So that the author may ſafely be oppoſed here, without any the leaſt imputation of joining with the Doctor in this debate againſt him, whoſe ſenſe of the text he has in a manner adopted, which I ſhall now conſider.

Some, ſays he, ſuppoſe that by the ſtrait gate, is meant the entrance upon an holy life; which is the ſame that is commonly called converſion, or the newbirth. And by ſtriving to enter in at this gate, they underſtand the exerciſes and endeavours of the unregenerate, which are antecedent to their converſion. But few or none, who underſtand the text thus, ſuppoſe there is any certain connexion between the ſtriving here exhorted to, and ſaving converſion, or that there is any promiſe made to this ſtriving. This is the ſenſe in which calviniſtic divines underſtand the text. And it ſeems ſomewhat ſtrange, that when this author undertook the cauſe of orthodoxy, he ſhould give up and reject their ſenſe of the text, which was ſo greatly in diſpute.

It is well known thoſe on the arminian ſide, who maintain, that regeneration is at or by baptiſm, renounce the foregoing ſenſe of this text, as inconſiſtent with their principles. Theſe will no doubt join with the author in ſupporting that ſenſe, which he has attempted to eſtabliſh, viz. By the ſtrait gate our Saviour means in general the entrance into heaven or eternal life. And then by ſtriving to enter in at this gate, is meant a keeping the commandments of God, or the holy exerciſes by which they walk in the way to heaven; fight the good fight of faith, and ſo lay hold on eternal life, which ſome think is a ſhort ſummary of their whole ſcheme. For this tends to deliver them from the invincible influences of the holy Spirit in grown perſons, and ſenſible experiences and exerciſes of mind in converſion, ſince the ſtrait gate, according to this expoſition, has no reference to regeneration. All that adult perſons have to do, is to keep the commands, and ſo lay hold on eternal life.

Is not advancing this gloſs on the text, the moſt effectual method that could be taken, unobſervedly to overthrow calviniſm in this point, and promote arminianiſm, when done, tho' not on deſign, by a profeſs'd calviniſt in defence of calviniſm?

However, as this interpretation of the text made by arminians, was to me obſcure and unintelligible, as not holding forth the true ſenſe of the text; ſo it is equally ſo now, when made by a calviniſt. But whether this is owing to the miſinterpretation of the text, or to my age and dulneſs, I ſhall not determine, but leave to the impartial public, when the following things are conſidered.

He explains the ſtrait gate, as meaning the entrance into heaven or eternal life. Now if the entrance into heaven be a metaphorical expreſſion, it is as obſcure as the ſtrait gate; and then how can it be a proper explanation of that metaphorical phraſe?—But if he means entering into heaven ſtrictly without metaphor, this is not till death, and then it ſhould ſeem, that ſtriving to enter in by this gate would be endeavouring to die, which makes a very uncouth ſenſe. But take ſtriving as he has explained it, the holy exerciſes of true ſaints, by which they walk in the way to heaven; yet it is ſtill unintelligible, how they can walk in the narrow way that leads to heaven, ſince they are ſuppoſed, by his expoſition, to have entered there by paſſing thro' the gate. Surely there is ſome impropriety in repreſenting perſons travelling towards a place, who have already arrived and entered into it.

But if by the entrance into heaven or eternal life, he means the entering into ſtate of grace or converſion, where is the difference which he ſuppoſes between this and the firſt ſenſe, which he mentions, and endeavours to overthrow? The ſtriving is before the entrance, or regeneration. How then can it mean the exerciſes of true ſaints?

He has not attempted here to explain what is meant by the narrow way, nor ſhewed the propriety of our Lord's placing this gate before the way in his repreſentation; both which are, I apprehend, neceſſary to be done, in order to ſet the ſenſe of this important text in a true and conſiſtent light. Theſe are plain and eaſy to be underſtood on the calviniſtic interpretation, but very obſcure and unintelligible, for any thing that I have ſeen advanced by thoſe on the arminian ſide, or this author.

Doctor Doddridge, to whom he refers us, paraphraſes it as follows, And let me urge it upon you, that you exert your utmoſt ſtrength to enter at the ſtrait gate, which I formerly mentioned as leading to eternal life, (Matt. vii, 14. vol. i. 279.) which is, There are many who enter into deſtruction—becauſe they are diſcouraged by the hardſhips which attend THE ENTRANCE ON A RELIGIOUS LIFE, as they ſee, that ſtrait is the gate, and rugged and painful the way which leads to eternal life. And he points it out, as a thing worthy of obſervation, in his note, that our Lord mentions the gate before the way. Such is my weakneſs, that I cannot deviſe why this author referred to Dr. Doddridge, as an authority for his new ſenſe of this text, ſince the Doctor does ſo expreſsly repreſent the ſtrait gate, to be the entrance on a religious life. Strive to enter, is the duty enjoined. How came the unregenerate to be excuſed from it? Have they no need to enter? Or have they no need to ſtrive in order to this? Nor do I ſee that Mr. Pool's SynopſisPoli. Syn. in Loco. Enitimini omnibus viribus. Aperte oftendit Chriſtus numerum servandorum non eſſe definitum decreto excludente omnem actum humanz valuntatis, quando omnes ad capeſſende vtam invit • t. refer'd to, is more to his purpoſe, ſince he aſſerts that "Chriſt invites or requires all, the unregenerate not excepted, to take in hand or enter upon the way, i. e. of holineſs. And that they ſtrive in this matter with all their powers.

But ſuppoſe Mr. Pool was of opinion, that the gate and the way meant the ſame thing, a keeping of God's commandments, as the author expreſſeth it. As we are to call no man father upon earth, I would enquire here, ſince the gate and the way, are distinct things in nature, and in the proper uſe of the words, have always been ſo underſtood; and ſince in their borrowed uſe, as applied by Chriſt to ſpirituals, there are two diſtinct things which they aptly point out, viz. enterance upon, and progreſs in the chriſtian life, what reaſon can be aſſigned for this fancied change of their ſignification, that they ſhould ſignify one and the ſame thing in a borrowed ſenſe? Is there any way of coming at the true meaning of words, uſed in a borrowed ſenſe, but by having recourſe to their ſignification, in their natural uſe? If therefore, that be changed in their borrowed uſe, and no reference had to it; by what rule can their true meaning be aſcertained? Sure it muſt be left to the capricious humor of every one.

Moreover, that the author's conſtruction is meerly imaginary, and without foundation, may be further argued thus: It is allowed by all, that by entering the ſtrait gate is meant that, without which there is no entering into the kingdom of heaven. But thouſands may have entered into the kingdom of heaven, without entering the ſtrait gate, in the author's ſenſe, by living in a courſe of holy obedience, for want of opportunity. It is reaſonable to ſuppoſe, that ſome have ſavingly imbraced God through Chriſt, in their laſt expiring moments, and to have had no opportunity for a courſe of holy obedience. Now if men may enter the ſtrait gate, in the true ſenſe of the words, ſo as to go to heaven, without entering, in the author's ſenſe, then it ſeems the author's ſenſe is not the true ſenſe.

Thus reſtoring the true and genuine ſenſe of the text, (which might be more abundantly done at large, if there were occaſion) the exhortation ſtands full to the unregenerate, ſtrive to enter in at the ſtrait gate.

Were I allowed to ſpeak freely my humble ſenſe of the text, to me it appears, that by entering the ſtrait gate, is meant active converſion to God, or a compliance with the covenant of grace, in the way of faith &c. A gate ſo ſtrait as can never be entered by us, unleſs made morally poſſible, by the power of God in regenerating grace; and yet the indeſpensable duty of all under the goſpel. This is the gate we muſt enter upon pain of eternal damnation. What! And not required to ſtrive in this matter! Thrice amazing!

This error hath, I think, hitherto been called Sandemanean, perhaps becauſe others have not as yet publicly avow'd it; doubtleſs if they do, they will have a juſt right to ſhare in the honour of if.

However, the author goes on in ſupport of his interpretation, and affirms roundly, as an evidence that ſtriving in the text does not mean the unholy exerciſes and endeavours of thoſe whoſe hearts are wholly under the dominion of ſin; but the holy exerciſes and ſtrivings of the truly godly, that the word in the, original tranſlated strive, when uſed in other places of the new teſtament, as it is often, ALWAYS DENOTES the exerciſes and labour of true chriſtians in their way to heaven. Upon which I would obſerve, that if this be true, then the word strive is more appropriated to ſincere chriſtians, than almoſt any other word in the bible; yea much more than ſaith and repentance, ſince the ſtony ground hearers believed for a while; Simon Magus believed; and the devils believe; and Judas repented; none of whom are ſuppoſed by orthodox divines to have been gracious.

However, let us examine the authorities which he has adduced to prove, that in the new teſtament the word ſtrive, ALWAYS DENOTES the exerciſes of true chriſtians.

One of theſe is Paul's exhortation to Timothy, Fight the good fight of faith; and a ſecond, what the ſame apoſtle ſays of himſelf, "I have fought the good fight." But in both theſe inſtances, that which limits the word fight or ſtrive, to the exerciſes of true chriſtians, is rather the GOOD fight, with which it is connected. Whereas if Mr. Hopkins's ſenſe of the word ſtrive, were certain, there had been no need at all for the apoſtle to have added, the GOOD ſtrife or fight ſince it could mean nothing elſe, but a good and holy ſtriving. Theſe two inſtances then, ſo far as I can diſcern, rather invalidate than prove his aſſertion, ſince they ſeem to imply there might be a fighting and ſtriving that was not thus ſtrictly good and ſucceſsful. King David danced in a holy manner before the ark, and he being an eminently good man, the word dancing is uſed to denote his holy exerciſe. But will this prove, that the word dancing always denotes an holy, gracious exerciſe?

His next inſtance is, And every one that ſtriveth for the maſtery, is temperate in all things: Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, &c. Here the apoſtle ſpeaks of ſtriving for the maſtery and for a corruptible crown. Were theſe gracious exerciſes? This text which he has produced, ſeems to confute the interpretation he has advanced, inſtead of eſtabliſhing it.

It is, I apprehend, a matter of great importance, that the ſcriptures, and particularly, that this and the like paſſages are not perverted. And if this perverſion which, as it appears to me, is here given to this text, ſtrive to enter, &c. ſhould be received for truth, I cannot but think it would have a very bad tendency to encreaſe ſecurity and negligence about religion, and open profaneneſs among the unregenerate. For, according to him, if I underſtand him right, this text has no reference to any exerciſes, endeavours or duties performable by ſinners while unregenerate, but entirely refers to the holy exerciſes of ſincere chriſtians. Now if this text does not reſpect the unconverted, and enjoin duties upon them, where can there be any paſſage found in the bible that has any reference to them? And if Chriſt never exhorted unconverted ſinners to ſtrive and ſeek for the grace of God, then there can be no good reaſon for their attendance on the goſpel, or performing any duties of religion immediate or preſent, nor ſin in the omiſſion of them, while they remain in unregeneracy. For where there is no law, there is no tranſgreſſion. Let this author produce ſome divine law, or exhortation, or command, requiring the duties, endeavours and exerciſes of the unregenerate, or ſay plainly, there is nothing required of them while in that ſtate; and conſequently that all their religious endeavours have no foundation but the commandments of men, and the miſtakes of miniſters: For this muſt be the caſe, if God has not required them. All the neceſſary, and all the good reaſon of any endeavours in religion, depend on a divine command requiring them.

I paſs on to his

Queſ. II. Why are means to be uſed, and what end does this anſwer? Or of what advantage is it to uſe means? What motive and encouragement is there to this? P. 121.

"It has been obſerved," ſays the author, that the end of uſing or attending on the means of grace is inſtruction, &c. By this inſtruction, the author explains himſelf to mean ſpeculative knowledge, and what is ſomething more, even all that light and knowledge of divine things, that can agree to the unregenerate.P. 127, 128.

Here I aſk leave to enquire, by what authority, this ſpeculative knowledge, even all that the unregenerate, as ſuch, are capable of, is ſet up as the end of attending on the means of grace? Doth not every one know, that the end of uſing means to any purpoſe, is the accompliſhing that purpoſe? And is it not abundantly clear from the ſcriptures, both of the old and new teſtament, that the end of attending on the means of grace, as appointed and required by God, is grace, the fruits of holineſs? Thus when God gives an account of the means and advantages indulged to the jewiſh church, he expects fruits of holineſs, Wherefore, when I looked that it ſhould bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?Iſa. v. 1,—6.

So the great end and deſign of the grace revealed in the goſpel, is to teach us, that denying ungodlineſs and worldly luſts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent world.Tit. ii. 11. So ſtrictly is this end enjoined us by God, in the uſe of all means and advantages, arguments and motives, joyful and dreadful, ſet before us in the goſpel, that 'tis on peril of our eternal damnation, if we fail of reaching this bleſſed end. He that believeth not, ſhall be damned.Mark xvi. 16. Except ye repent, ye ſhall all likewiſe periſh.Luk. xiii. 3.

From theſe hints, and much more of the like nature, with which the ſcriptures abound, can any one, brought up under the goſpel, be at a loſs, to what end God requires, him to attend on the means of grace?

Should it be objected here, in vindication of ſetting up ſpeculative knowledge as the end of attending on the means of grace; that the unregenerate thro' moral pravity can go no further than ſpeculation, and that conviction which is from a common work of the ſpirit, till a new heart is given, in regeneration. I anſwer, be it ſo; yet 'tis to be remembered, that God don't make the depraved will of the creature the rule of his duty: But, on the dreadful penalty, above expreſt, requires him to reach the appointed end. Make you a new heart, and a new ſpirit, for why will ye die? Turn yourſelves and live ye.Ezek. xviii. 31, 32.

Are not ſinners in imminent danger, many ways, by admitting this principle, as,

1. Of excuſing themſelves of blame continuing in unconversion, under the means of grace? For how can they be to blame for not attaining to that, in the uſe of means, that is not the end propoſed and required?

2ly. This principle admitted may prove a dangerous temptation to many, to ceaſe from the uſe of means, having attained, as they are confident, the end, viz. a competent degree of ſpeculative knowledge. May not thouſands under the goſpel, that have been well indoctrinated in the principles of chriſtianity, ſay, and be juſtified in it, we are well aſſured we have attained to that degree of inſtruction and ſpeculative knowledge of chriſtianity, that renders us capable of being regenerated; and, being ſo, of exerciſing all neceſſary chriſtian grace. 'Tis evident to us, that thouſands leſs diſtinctly knowing in the doctrines of chriſtianity than we, have to a judgment of charity been regenerated, many of them in youthful age, perſons of weak underſtanding and little knowledge. If the chief reaſon aſſigned by the author, why the unregenerate muſt attend on means, is the attainment of this inſtruction, or ſpeculative knowledge: And if, according to this new principle, the more we are awakened to diligence in attending on means, and to reformation of all known evils, we are, on the whole more vile, than when at eaſe in our ſins; is it not moſt ſafe for us, to reſt where we are; having attained the end of attendance on the means of grace, whereby we are, as the author proves, now likely to be ſaved? Why then ſhould we expoſe ourſelves to a more aggravated condemnation, when there is nothing to be got by it?

Should it be objected here, that it was not the author's deſign ſtrictly and properly to treat of the end of attending on the means of grace. For anſwer, I ſhall only leave this query, viz. Whether there be room for an objection of this kind, when the title of the ſection, the terms of the queſtion, and what immediately follows, is duly conſidered, and compared with that paſſage in the cloſe, viz. The only proper way therefore to encourage the ſinner, who is under any great degree of genuine conviction of ſin, is—to teach him the true end and deſign of means. No doubt therefore the author deſigned that here, which in his beſt judgment appeared moſt proper in this caſe, viz. to teach the true end and deſign of means. I proceed.

The author having raiſed the unregenerate to the higheſt degree of an awakened ſenſe of divine things, that their ſtate, as ſuch, is capable of, every thing as himſelf expreſſeth it, ſhort of diſcerning the true beauty or moral excellency of divine things,p. 723, 824. He propoſes this query, viz. If it ſhould be aſked, what good all this inſtruction and knowledge will do the unregenerate, who are under the dominion of an hard and impenitent heart, and will continue ſo until a new heart is given in regeneration?

Here let it be noted, that 'tis fully conceded by the author, that the unregenerate, under conſideration, have all degrees of light and conviction of divine truth, that can, by a common work of the ſpirit, agree to an unregenerate ſtate. And therefore all that the three thousand pricked in the heart, at Peter's ſermon had,Act. ii. 37. and all that Paul had when ſlain by the law,Ro. vii. 9. and all that the Publican had, who ſtanding afar off, did not ſo much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but ſmote on his breaſt, ſaying, God be merciful to me a ſinner. All, I ſay, that theſe had, while unconverted, thoſe under conſideration, are ſuppoſed to have. And in a word, all that there is in a common work of the ſpirit of God, preparatory to a ſaving faith, the inlightening of natural conſcience, putting the ſinner upon reformation of life, a diligent attendance on means of grace, humbling him by the law, bringing of him to the foot of divine ſovereignty, to a ſenſe of his loſt ſtate, and the juſtice of his condemnation by the law: All this is here fully comprehended.

It is well known, that theſe things, as preparatory to a ſaving faith, in the ordinary way of God's diſpenſing his grace, have been ſteadily maintained by calviniſt divines of the greateſt note, as agreeable to the oracles of God. The great Dr. Owen makes no account of a faith not preceeded by a law work.Dr. Owen on juſtification. Mr. Norton greatly inſiſts upon it.Nor. orthod. Evan. Likewiſe Mr. Sheppard, & Mr. Stoddard make the want of it an evidence of the unſoundneſs of faith.Mr. Stoddard's ſafety of, &c. And much of this nature, if I miſtake not, is found in Mr. Edwards's writings. But I forbear, as it is well known, that quotations on this head, from authors of greateſt note, might fill a large volume.

I wou'd be far from inſinuating, that the author has any inclination to favour the new divinity:By the new divinity here, I mean the divinity lately brought into the country, mentioned p. 5th, that intirely denies any preparatory work, in order to ſaving faith, by the common influence of the ſpirit; affirming, that the firſt influence of the ſpirit upon the ſoul, is of a ſaving nature; and that it can't be proved from the holy ſcriptures, that the ſpirit of God ever ſtrives with the unregenerate. Yet at the ſame time, I muſt own, I am not well able to account for his putting ſo great a flight on all poſſible attainments of the unregenerate, when at the ſame time, he muſt be ſenſible, they contain in them, all that is preparatory to a ſaving faith, by a common work of the ſpirit of God.

And now let us attend to the forementioned queries. "If this knowledge," i.e. all that light, knowledge, conviction and legal humiliation, with all the proper effects of it, in reformation and amendment of life, that can agree to the unregenerate, will be of no ſervice to them, and really do them no good, and they are as far from ſalvation as ever. &c.

For a clear underſtanding here, let it be noted,

1. That when the author, in theſe queries, ſpeaks of being under the dominion of a hard and impenitent heart, it is evident from his own words, no more is meant than meerly continuing unregenerate, and will continue so, i.e. under the dominion of a hard and impenitent heart, until a new heart is given, in regeneration. So when he ſpeaks of the impenitent ſinners, continuing obſtinately to reject and oppoſe ſalvation, offered in the goſpel, no more can be underſtood, than continuing impenitent under the goſpel. To be ſure nothing can be underſtood here, by the ſinners obſtinately rejecting the goſpel ſalvation, but what is conſiſtent with his ſeeking the Lord with trembling, and reforming every known ſin. Becauſe ſuch are the ſubject of the preſent debate, and ſuch he explains himſelf to mean, and of ſuch 'tis aſſerted they are more vile, &c.

I mention this, becauſe, as the author uſes the terms, they are equivocal: he muſt, to be conſiſtent with himſelf, mean no more than meerly continuing unregenerate, under the clear light of the goſpel; others underſtand by this phraſe, an open and avowed oppoſition to the goſpel, or what is nearly bordering upon it; which is ſomething different from bare impenitence under the goſpel, accompanied with ſeeking the Lord with trembling.

2. It is to be noted here, that the author not only fully concedes to what is contained in theſe queries, but goes beyond, and aſſerts, not only that all theſe things will do the unregenerate no good; but that on the whole, they are more vile in God's ſight, with all theſe attainments, than they would be without them.

And is not all this ſtrange! Is it of no ſervice, on the whole, to the unregenerate, to be broken off from ſtrong habits of moſt enormous wickedneſs, tho' only from natural conſcience awakened? Is it of no ſervice to them, to have attained that ſpeculative knowledge, without which, as the author obſerves, the ſinner can't be regenerated? Again, is it of no ſervice to the unregenerate, to be humbled and ſlain by the law, convinced of their loſt and periſhing ſtate, and of the juſtice of God in their condemnation? In a word, is all that is done by the ſpirit of God, for the unregenerate, preparatory to a ſaving faith, on the whole, of no uſe at all to them?

But to ſpeak of things more diſtinctly, I fully concede, there is, ſtrictly ſpeaking, nothing that is holy, ſpiritual or pleaſing to God, nothing that ſtands in connexion with any promiſe of, that might recommend the ſinner to God's ſpecial favour, in all theſe or the like attainments. But here I

Query, 1. Is there therefore, really no fort of goodneſs, of any kind, or in any ſenſe whatsoever, in all theſe, or the like attainments of the unregenerate, when conſidered in themſelves, not ſo much as that of a negative kind, which conſiſts in the abſence of a greater degree of poſitive moral evil? If ſo: It muſt clearly follow,

1. That this truth ought to be taught with the greateſt plainneſs, and enforced in the ſtrongeſt manner upon all: The moſt profligate muſt be aſſured, that he is not a whit more wicked, than the moſt reformed, awakened ſinner, under the ſame external means of light. And here it can't be denied, but that the author has ſo far diſcharged himſelf well, upon this principle, as that, tho' he has not in expreſs words aſſerted this; yet he has been effectually cautious, not to hint a word to the contrary, throughout this whole ſection, when there was the faireſt occaſion, and whilſt he laboured abundantly to prove, that the reformed, on the whole, is more vile than the profligate.

2. It clearly follows, on this principle, that the profligate may, by no means, be exhorted to break off his ſins, and reform his life, with any view to his being leſs wicked. That to have any reſpect to this, in breaking off his ſins, if he fails of doing it in a gracious manner, is to act upon a falſe principle: That however a wrangling conſcience may ſuggeſt ſuch a notion, it is utterly falſe: And that he may ſafely, in the fear of God, wrangle it out, with his miſinformed conſcience, and be aſſured he is not a whit more wicked, continuing his execrable practices, than he would be, if he reformed them!

Here again, it muſt be own'd, the author has acted in a fair conſiſtency with this principle: Since, thro' this whole ſection, he has not ſo much as once mentioned the ſinner's breaking off from his ſins, as that, whereby he is more in the way of mercy, or leſs wicked, than going on in them. All that belongs to the unregenerate, as means, with the author, it ſeems, terminates in inſtruction or ſpeculative knowledge; as tho' it was not as much out of God's wonted way, to beſtow ſaving grace on the ſinner, abandoned to all kind of wickedneſs, while ſuch, as on the groſsly ignorant.

3. Upon this principle, all the attainments of the unregenerate, ſuch as awakening, conviction, reformation, legal humiliation, and whatſoever is preparatory to a ſaving faith, are no grounds at all of thankfulneſs to God. If they are really ſuch worthleſs things, what are of no ſervice to the unregenerate, can do them no good, and on the account of which, conſidered in themſelves, they are not leſs wicked, than they would be without them, abandoning themſelves to all manner of wickedneſs; in this caſe, to give thanks to God for them, would be no leſs than to mock God, giving thanks, for a thing of nought.

On the other hand, if the truth really is, that all theſe attainments of the unregenerate, conſidered in themſelves, tho' but the fruits of common grace, are great and precious favours from God, endearing grounds of thankfulneſs, whereby they are leſs wicked, and, in the true ſenſe of ſcripture, in ſtate brought nearer to the kingdom of God, to a ſtate of grace, the ſtate of a good man, than when, in a great meaſure, carnally ſecure and thoughtleſs about the concerns of their ſouls, and wallowing in all manner of moſt abominable wickedneſs, under the ſame external means of light. If this, I ſay, be the truth, handed down from the reformation, through the hands of eminent divines, as it now ſtands in the confeſſion of faith, as quoted above; why was it not fairly brought out, on this ſpecial occaſion, and ſet in a clear light? Why does the author artfully conceal it, thro' this whole diſcourſe, treating of it in a ſort of a compound ſenſe? Was it fear, leſt ſinners ſhould make a righteouſneſs of theſe things, if in any ſenſe ſpoke well of? Have mortals a right to be ſo much afraid of the abuſe of any of God's truths, as to conceal them, when the ſubject treated on, ſo eſpecially requires it? Again,

Be it ſo, that by all theſe attainments, as above, the unregenerate have no moral fitneſs to receive grace, nothing that in the leaſt intitles, or recommends them to the favour of God. Is it therefore true, that they have no fort of fitneſs in any ſenſe? Is it not bold for creatures to aſſert this; when 'tis evident from ſcripture and the experience of the godly, that 'tis the way, the wiſdom of God in the ordinary way of diſpenſing his grace, takes, to bring home ſouls to Chriſt, to wound before he heals, convince of ſin before he convinces of righteouſneſs? Is it not reaſonable to think, if we were angels and not men, we ſhould ſee many uſeful diſtinctions we have no clear diſcernment of now? Ought it not therefore, to be a ſufficient guard to us, when we ſee the wiſdom of God takes this or that method to accompliſh any certain purpoſe, not to aſſert there is no fitneſs in it, becauſe we don't clearly diſcern it? Are we ſure there is no fitneſs in this order of proceeding, that the ſinner ſhould firſt be made ſenſible of the dreadful majeſty of God ſinned againſt, and ſo of the dreadful deſert of ſin, and of the utter ruin of his nature by it, before the way of pardon is opened up to him thro' a mediator?

But to return to the queries.

That which is not the leaſt remarkable, is that after all theſe attainments, as above, the unregenerate are as far from ſalvation as ever. Where it may be obſerved, that expreſſion here uſed, "as far from ſalvation as ever," can hardly, with ſtrict propriety, be underſtood to relate to the time of the ſinner's being brought into a ſtate of grace; becauſe ſuch a time might never come; and if it did, the propoſition wou'd not be true: Becauſe, in that caſe, every day brings the ſinner one day nearer to ſalvation. It muſt therefore relate to the ſtate of the ſinner, as being in ſtate as far from ſalvation as ever. And can this be true, when all that is preparatory to a ſaving faith is already wrought in the ſoul? Is the timber that is fell, hew'd and drawn to the place, in ſtate, as far from that of being wrought into a frame, as the ſtanding trees? Equally evident and certain it is, that every degree of knowledge, conviction, reformation, legal humiliation, &c. attained by the unregenerate, that is neceſſary, in order to ſtate of grace and ſalvation, brings them in ſtate one degree nearer to it; whether ever they attain it or not.

I might here go on to remark on ſundry paſſages, which, to my weak underſtanding, are not well expreſt; but being much of the ſame nature with what has been touch'd upon, and in the main, comprehended in the general propoſition, diſcourſed upon above, I ſhall paſs them, ſave a hint on what the author ſeems to deſign as a ſimilitude, for the illuſtration of the truth of the affirmative part of the queſtion, viz. If a father calls after, and commands his two ſons, who are running from him with a deſign to quit his family and government, as what they perfectly hate, immediately to return back, and ſubmit themſelves to his authority. If they ought to obey their father's command, then they are under obligation to ſtop, and attend to what he has to ſay. For this is implied in what he requires, and neceſſary in order to it. Therefore if one turns about, and attends to what his father has to ſay to him, while the other ſtops his ears, and runs on, till he is out of hearing; the former does not violate the obligation to ſtop and hearken, which the other does, tho' if he continues to hate his father, and refuſes to return and ſubmit to his government, he can't be ſaid to obey his father's command; and may by the light and conviction laid before him, by his father, in conſequence of his ſtopping and attending, be more guilty in refuſing to ſubmit to him, than the other that has been out of hearing. To this I reply,

1. That this ſimilitude does by no means fully repreſent the ſtate of the caſe: Here is nothing of the awakened, reformed ſinner, ſave only his making a pauſe, ſtopping his career, when running away, and attending to what his father had to ſay. Yet lame and defective as it is, I propoſe a query or two: And for diſtinction fake, Let the letter A. repreſent the ſon that run off, and B. him that turn'd back, and attended to what his father had to ſay.

I aſk, what was the true cauſe and reaſon why A. ſtopt his ears, run off, and utterly refuſed to hear a word from his father, or pay him the leaſt regard; when B. hearkened ſo far, as to ſtop his wicked courſe, and attend to the reaſons his father had to offer, for his ſubmiſſion? Both were alike well educated, by their father, alike well uſed, under equal advantages, and obligations. All theſe are ſuppoſed. What therefore can be the true cauſe and reaſon of this difference, but a more wicked ſtate of mind in A? What, but a greater degree of obduracy and hardneſs of heart; a more fixed reſolution of rebellion, and of caſting the utmoſt contempt on his father's authority? Will any one in this view of the caſe, ſay, that B. is more wicked than A? What! becauſe B. is leſs bold, daring and fixed in his rebellion, and in caſting the utmoſt contempt on his father's authority? Sure neither ſcripture nor reaſon will admit this ſentiment. Should it be pleaded here, that B. is more wicked than A.

1. Becauſe B. diſcovers a greater degree of tenderneſs and ſenſibility of conſcience ſinned againſt, than A. in non ſubmiſſion.

I anſwer, that to argue thus, wou'd be prepoſterous and abſurd to the laſt degree. For, upon this principle, the moſt abandoned ſinner under the goſpel, having waſted his conſcience, and ſinned away his moral ſenſe, ſo that he is paſt feeling, as the ſcripture expreſſeth it, may commit the moſt atrocious wickedneſs, and yet be innocent, becauſe paſt feeling. Whereas the truth in this caſe is juſt the reverſe; he, of the two, under the ſame goſpel light and advantages, that can with the greateſt boldneſs and freedom, commit the moſt enormous wickedneſs, without remorſe or feeling of conſcience, is the more deſperately wicked. As is evidently the caſe with A.

But perhaps the grand plea in reſerve, to evince that B. is more faulty than A. (if different from what has already been ſaid) is, that B. has a higher degree of internal light and conviction, that 'tis his duty to ſubmit to his father, than A. had, therefore more guilty.

By way of reply,

I aſk, what is the blameable cauſe, why A. has not as great a degree of internal light and conviction of his duty in this matter, as B? If it be intirely and meerly A's fault, ſhall not A. be dealt with, as if he had that light and conviction in his conſcience; which only, and meerly his own fault, wilfully ſtopping his ears, impeaded his having?—Is not this point already determined by unering wiſdom, in the caſe of our Saviour's treating the jews, above cited; when upon doing the works among them that none other man did; Chriſt charges them with having both ſeen and hated both him and the father. Where it does not appear, that they actually ſaw the divinity of Chriſt, and therein the glory of the Father that ſhone forth in his works; but thro' the exceeding wickedneſs, blindneſs, and prejudice of their hearts, meerly their own faultineſs, they were, as to many of them, no doubt, blind to, and did not perceive, but rejected the demonſtrative light of Chriſt's divinity, that ſhone in his works. And ſo were reckoned with by God, as if they had ſeen it; becauſe nothing but their own meer faultineſs prevented it.

Now it this be true, applied to the preſent caſe; and A, be accountable before God as ſinning againſt all that light, which he wilfully refuſed, by ſhutting his eyes and ſtopping his ears; how can B. be chargeable with ſinning againſt a greater degree of light, than A? If it can't therefore be affirmed with truth, of B. repreſenting the awakened, reformed ſinner, that he is in the preſent tenſe, on the whole, undoubtedly more vile, odious, and abominable in God's ſight than A. repreſenting the bold, daring, preſumptuous ſinner, going on reſolutely in his ſins; the author's cauſe muſt fail, as repreſented by this ſimilitude of his own chuſing. Becauſe this is abundantly affirmed by the author, of the awakened, reformed ſinner, compared with the ſecure going on in his ſins, as the grand foundation of this debate, as ſeen above.

However, let us hear what the author himſelf faith, "If" (ſays he) "he," i.e. the ſon that turned about, continues to hate his father, and refuſes to return and ſubmit to his government, he may by the light and conviction laid before him by his father, in conſequence of his ſtopping and attending, be more guilty in refuſing to ſubmit to him, than the other, who has been out of hearing.

'Tis obſervable here, that the author has ſaid nothing of the preſent ſtate of B. under conviction, as being more guilty than A. who ſtopt his ears, and run off. Nor is it to be attributed to any want of ingenuity in the author. For who does not ſee, that any thing of this nature here aſſerted, wou'd be even ſhocking to common ſenſe? Inſtead therefore, of any thing of this nature, he ſeems to ſuppoſe ſome future ſeaſon, conſequent on B's attending on his father's inſtruction, in which he might, by light laid before him, be more guilty in refuſing to ſubmit, than A. out of hearing. Which is but a meer ſuppoſition of a may be, relating to futurity. And ſo nothing to the purpoſe, ſince, ſo long as there is any inſtance of a ſinner under the goſpel, awakened from a ſecure, profligate, vicious life, to a diligent attendance on the means of grace, that is not, on the whole, more vile in God's ſight, than he wou'd be, continuing ſecure, going on in his ſins, as the above inſtance is a plain one, the general propoſition can't be true. However, the following queries are propoſed to the author, on what he hath here ſaid.

Q. 1. What moment of future time, may be fixed upon, when B. as repreſented in the ſimilitude above, I will be more guilty than A? If it be not true now: may not the ſame reaſons for which it is now true, remain and increaſe, ſo that it may never be true?

Q. 2d. Whether this way of reaſoning in favour of A. as tho' he might expect ſome notable abatement of his guilt, by ſtopping his ears and going out of hearing, don't carry in it too much encouragement to the ſinners A. repreſents, who abandon themſelves to wickedneſs, and neglect the means of grace: Since they are ſufficiently inclined in themſelves, without the help of others, to deviſe pleas in their own favour?

Another paſſage is, If the plowing of the wicked is ſin, ſhall they therefore not plow?—Where it may be obſerved, that this paſſage was brought in by the author, to illuſtrate his point, as ſeen from the connexion, viz. that the awakened, reformed ſinners being, on the whole, more vile, &c. is no reaſon why they ſhould neglect means.

2. That a part only is here put, for the whole ſtate of the caſe, and therefore can be no illuſtration of the point. The whole ſtate of the caſe being put, ſtands thus, viz. Whether on ſuppoſition, the ſinner awakened from ſloth and negligence, to plow and uſe proper means to provide ſuſtenance for himſelf and family, being, on the whole, worſe, than he would have been, had he continued in ſloth and negligence, under the ſame external means of light, the queſtion in this caſe is, whether he ſhall plow, i.e. whether, if providing for his family, he is, on the whole, worſe than worſe than an infidel; becauſe while he neglected providing for his family, we are divinely aſſured he was worſe than an infidel, ſo that if he be worſe now, providing for them, than he was neglecting of them, he muſt be worſe than worſe than an infidel.

And now let the reader judge, the caſe being fairly ſtated, whether he ſhall plow in this caſe; and whether the caſe only in part, put as above, can at all ſerve to illuſtrate the author's point?

There is one thing more, which I ſhall but touch upon, and that is the remarkable variation of expreſſions uſed by the author, relating to the main point in debate. Thus while he repeatedly aſſerts, that the awakened, reformed ſinner, while impenitent, is on the whole, by light received, more vile and odious in God's ſight, than he wou'd be continuing in ſecurity, and going on in his ſins: And that he is undoubtedly ſo, what ever be his reformation and amendment of life, as quoted and explained above; undoubtedly, that is, unavoidably; for if his greater ſinfulneſs might poſſibly be avoided in this caſe, the matter would be brought into doubt, and then he would not be undoubtedly more vile. With theſe and the like declarations, are intermixed ſome ſoftening expreſſions, viz. that the ſinner is ſo in a reſpect, commonly, and for the moſt part; and in the cloſe of his diſcourſe, he comes down wonderfully, in theſe words, viz. His appearing to himſelf to grow worſe—is really no reaſon why he ſhould neglect means, but rather an encouragement conſtantly to attend. Fully orthodox this. But why this abatement? If the principle advanced in former pages is true; why not thro' the whole? If it was of importance to be ſet up; why not to be kept up, eſpecially in the cloſe? Which if it had, wou'd have ſtood thus, viz. The awakened ſinner's really growing worſe, on the whole, in attendance on means, as conviction of ſin ariſes, what ever be his reformation and amendment of life, and what ever his humiliation preparatory to coming to Chriſt, more vile, odious and abominable in God's ſight, than he would have been continuing ſecure, and going on in the practice of all manner of moſt enormous wickedneſs, under the ſame external means of light, is really no reaſon why he ſhould neglect means; but rather an encouragement conſtantly to attend. Now if in the author's view, it appeared too ſtartling to a common reader, to cloſe his diſcourſe with this plain repreſentation of the ſtate of the caſe in debate: It had been a great favour, in my humble opinion, if he had been under the ſame reſtraint, when he advanced it. To be ſure it had prevented me theſe my poor labours on the ſubject. And I think I may ſay with good aſſurance, it had prevented grief to many worthy fathers in the miniſtry, whoſe praiſe is in the goſpel thro' the churches; and who are not ſo far ſuperannuated, but that with good old Eli, they tremble for fear of the ark; when they ſee it in danger of a wrong touch, from the vigour and ſprightlineſt of younger years.

I proceed to the

VI. General head propoſed, which was to conſider such objections as might ariſe.

Here, before I enter upon the objections, I deſire it may be well obſerved, that as the author don't confine himſelf, but takes the liberty to advance ſentiments which have no neceſſary connexion with the main point propoſed; ſo in remonſtrating againſt theſe ſentiments, I allow a place to objections, thence ariſing, as alſo to thoſe ariſing from principles, I oppoſe, favoured by thoſe ſentiments. What I chiefly aim at here, is, that nothing in the objections, be by the reader attributed to the author, but what evidently appears to be advanced by him, or in favour of what is advanced by him.

Obj. I. Should it be objected here, by the way, that in what is advanced in this diſcourſe, as matter of debate from the tenth ſection, things are carried too high, beyond the genuine ſenſe and meaning of the author's expreſſions.

I anſwer, it was with the ſtricteſt caution I proceeded in that matter, to the beſt of my underſtanding and not without the concurring thoughts of many, who are looked upon among the best judges of language.

Beſides, I have fairly expoſed the author's own words, to be judged by the impartial public; and might further add from the drift and ſcope of the whole, and from many conceſſions and after expreſſions, what to me appears a full confirmation, that the true ſenſe and meaning of the author's words, is well expreſt in what is ſaid; were it not that I am confident he will not inſiſt on this objection.

Obj. II. Is it not clear, both from ſcripture and reaſon, that ſin is aggravated according to the degree of light ſinned againſt?

I anſwer, It is readily granted, that he that ſins againſt a greater degree of light, is in that reſpect, a greater ſinner: But then it by no means ſhould follow, that he is ſo, on the whole, all other reſpects conſidered. As has been clearly ſhew'd above, To which I refer the reader.

Obj. III. 'Tis objected by ſome, that to urge ſinners to a diligent attendance on particular duties, ſuch as ſearching the ſcriptures, attending on the word preached, ſtrictneſs in reforming known ſin, and practiſing known duty, with earneſt cries to ſovereign grace, as means in order to faith, is not ſcriptural. That the only ſcriptural way of putting men upon attending on means, is to call upon them to repent and believe the goſpel.

This ſeems to be the purport of the author's anſwer to the third queſtion, viz. What obligations are men under to uſe means? Anſ. They ſeem to be under the ſame obligations to this, as they are to repent and believe the goſpel. And having confirmed his anſwer, he makes this obſervation, viz. That this is the ſcriptural way of calling upon men to attend means, viz. to call on them to repent and believe the goſpel. It is not here ſaid, this is one ſcriptural way: But it ſeems plainly meant to be underſtood, that this is the only ſcriptural way: Becauſe, if the author knew any ſingle text, that pointed out any particular duty, as a means, having undertook to anſwer this queſtion, as above, it muſt be ſuppoſed he would have adduced it.What I call the new divinity, utterly diſcards all notion of ſinners being exhorted to any particular duties, as means in order to faith. And to me it appears, the author in what is ſaid above, and thro' the whole X. ſections is inclined to favours it. ‡ p. 1 • 9.

Now if the author is here rightly underſtood, this is ſomething of the ſame nature with what was attempted on Luk. xiii. 24. But with this difference, that, in my humble opinion, was conſtering away the true meaning of a ſingle text: This, of all the texts in the bible, that injoin or inforce any particular duty on the unregenerate, as a means in order to ſaving faith and repentance. This wou'd be doing buſineſs! But is it true? Does not our Saviour expreſsly injoin ſinners to ſearch the ſcriptures as a means in order to come to the true knowledge of him as mediator?Joh. v. 39. To ſeek firſt the kingdom of God and his righteouſneſs?Matt. vi. 33. To labour for the meat that endures to everlaſting life?Joh. vi. 27. And to ſtrive to enter in at the ſtrait gate?Lu. xiii. 24. i.e. ſtrive to enter upon the chriſtian life, as explained above. And is not this attempt to enter, previous to actual entrance, ſince the former ſometimes exiſts without the latter? For many I ſay unto you will ſeek to enter in, and ſhall not be able. And is not the ſinner that finds the pearl, plainly repreſented as being a ſeeker, previous to his finding of it?Matt. xiii. 45, 46. And does not God complain of his people, not only charged with great wickedneſs, but with not having known the Lord; that they will not frame their doings to turn unto their God.Hoſ. v. 4 Sure this muſt be ſomething previous to a ſaving repentance, and ſomething that God required; otherwiſe they had not been blamed for the neglect of it; for where there is no law, there is no tranſgreſſion. And does not ſaint Paul clearly point out attendance on the word preached, as a means in order to faith? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word preached.Ro x. 17. And does not the apoſtle Peter expreſsly exhort Simon, being unregenerate, to pray? Repent therefore of this thy wickedneſs, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.Acts. viii. 22.

It is untrue to object here, that as Simon is directed firſt to repent, he is directed to pray, only on ſuppoſition, he did truly repent: Since after all, the encouragement ſet before him to pray, is encouragement peculiar to a ſinner's prayer. It is evident therefore, that as the apoſtle knew he was a ſinner, ſo he expected from him the prayer of a ſinner: And yet, by the Holy Ghoſt, directed him to pray. Is there nothing in all theſe that relates to the ſinners attending on any particular duty, as a means in order to obtain grace?

Can any art of metaphyſicks wrangle away all theſe and many more plain texts, that might be brought to the ſame purpoſe? I ſay all: Becauſe if there be but one ſingle text in the whole bible, that points out any duty to be done by the unregenerate, as a means in order to ſaith, the point is gained. And will any one deny this? Deny that there is any one duty appointed by God to be attended by the unregenerate, being of his viſible covenant people, as means in order to obtain his ſaving mercy! And if not: Sure there are other ſcriptural ways of calling upon men to attend on means of grace, than meerly by calling upon them to repent and believe the goſpel.

Again, it is evident from the laſt text mentioned, that ſinners are encouraged to ſuch religious exerciſes as they are capable of, being unregenerate, as means in order to obtain grace. Thus Simon a ſinner is encouraged to pray, (which the author owns in capitals is a means of grace) tho' it ſhould be the prayer of the unregenerate.

This will be evident, if we conſider the encouragement here ſet before Simon to pray, muſt be encouragement either to the prayer of a ſaint, or a ſinner: But a meer paradventure or may be of forgiveneſs, as contained in thoſe words, can't be the ſcriptural encouragement to the prayer of a ſaint: to ſuppoſe this, would be to contradict the current of the whole ſcripture. Sure every one that aſketh, i.e. as a ſaint, i.e. in faith, receiveth.Matt. vii. 7, 8. It muſt therefore be encouragement to the prayer of a ſinner, ſuch a prayer as a poor diſtreſſed ſinner, feeling his guilt and periſhing ſtate, is capable of. This encouragement equally extends itſelf to all other the ſinners eſſays of duty as means in order to repentance, and turning to God thro' Chriſt; ſuch as ſearching the ſcriptures, attendance on the word preached, reforming known ſins, and attending on known duties, &c. To all who with earneſt concern, thus attend on God's appointed means, the language of ſcripture encouragement is, may be God will be gracious, who can tell, if perhaps ſovereign grace may be diſplayed for your help, in this way! It implies in it, that God is a God of infinite goodneſs, can exerciſe his mercy towards them thro' Chriſt in this way, conſiſtent with the honour of all his other perfections; and that they are in ſome meaſure in the way, in which he is wont to beſtow mercy on periſhing Sinners, whenever he does beſtow it; the way in which millions have found mercy: And the way out of which he has determined, in the ordinary diſpenſation of his grace, not to beſtow it. Which is quite the reverſe of the new divinity.

This new divinity hath utterly perverted thoſe words of the prophet, "I am found of thoſe that ſought me not," to mean, that God is ſavingly found of thoſe, not that in time paſt did not ſeek him, which was the caſe of the Gentiles, but of thoſe that at the time when God is ſavingly found of them, live in the careleſs neglect of all means, and 〈◊〉 no ſenſe be ſaid to ſeek after God; encouraging ſuch, that they 〈◊〉 in as fair a way for ſalvation, as the moſt painful, diligent 〈◊〉 . And this, notwithſtanding theſe words ſo evidently refer to the calling 〈◊〉 the gentiles, compared with Ro. xi. 24, 25, 26. And notwithſtanding they are ſo expreſsly explained by the foregoing words of the 〈◊〉 verſe, I am ſought of them that aſked not after me.

One principal deſign of the text, above quoted, as it appears to 〈◊〉 , is to point out to us, that God's ordinary and appointed was of diſperſing his ſaving mercy to his covenant people, is that of their earneſt cries to God for it in a diligent attendance on all appointed means; not that tis beſtowed for their ſeeking, praying and ſtriving, but in that way. I am therefore ſo unhappy, as to fall under an apprehenſion, that both the doctor, and Mr. Hopkins, as they have miſt this ſenſe, have miſt one main deſign of the text; the one going into one extreme, the other into the other. The doctor on the one hand, making too much of the ſinner's ſeeking to God, in the diligent uſe of means, as though there was in it ſomething that is holy and ſpiritual in a lower degree, and ſomething that ſtands in connection with promiſes, of the beſtowment of ſaving grace. On the other hand, Mr. Hopkins makes too little of it, as tho' becauſe it was not holy, or connected with promiſes; therefore it was quite nothing at all, not ſo much as the way in which God ordinarily diſpenſes his ſaving mercy. Accordingly he abſolutely excludes it from any notice at all in the text; which evidently refers to great numbers of the Iſraelites, that were about to partake of regenerating grace; and which declares, God will be enquired of by the houſe of Iſrael to do it for them; i. e. to beſtow this regenerating grace. Whether of theſe extremes are furtheſt from the true ſenſe of the text, I will not undertake to ſay. But that both are wide of it, will appear, if the ſenſe of the text, as propoſed above, can be made good; which I ſhall attempt from the following particulars.

1. That the word in the original, here rendered this, or for this, anſwers to the lattin pronoun relative hoc, and evidently relates to all the bleſſings mentioned in the preceeding verſes of the context, from ver. 25, both of a ſpiritual and temporal nature, the whole good of the covenant is rapt up in the ſingle particle this. What I chiefly have my eye upon, as more to my preſent purpoſe, is a prediction of the beſtowment of regenerating grace on the houſe of Iſrael, amply declared ver. 25, on to the end of the 28.

2dly. The word in the original, here render'd yet, anſwers to the latin adverb, adhuc, and is righty render'd by yet, or yet ſtill, and is nearly the ſame in ſignification with nevertheleſs, or notwithſtanding; as theſe engliſhes, yet, but yet, bowbeit, are ſound joined in company with thoſe under • amen, which ſhews a near affinity between them, in ſignification. Now in order to a clear underſtanding of this text, it appears to be of importance to enquire, what thoſe things are, notwithſtanding which, or that have after them a yet ſtill, God will be enquired of by the houſe of Iſrael to do it for them.

To which I anſwer, they are all thoſe things in general, that are or can be objected, with any ſhew of excuſing the unregenerate among God's viſible covenant people, from ſeeking to God in the diligent uſe of means for regenerating grace, eſpecially things mentioned in the context. Particularly, ſhould it be objected, that God the Son hath by his death made the purchaſe, and paid down the full price of theſe ſpiritual bleſſings. That God the Father hath promiſed in the covenant of redemption, the beſtowment of them: and that, he hath revealed this his purpoſe of grace to men, and predicted the certain accompliſhment of it, as in the context. Why then (may it be ſaid) moſt ſinners ſeek to God in the uſe of means for it? The anſwer is full in the text, yet ſtill God will be enquired of, &c.

Again, ſhould it be objected, that the beſtowment of theſe bleſſings is a meer flow of ſelf-moving ſovereign goodneſs, without any the leaſt deſert or worthineſs in the ſinner, moving thereto; nay, the prayers cries, and whatſoever elſe the unregenerate are capable of, in the uſe of means, are all vile, odious and abominable in God's ſight, as it is for ſubſtance repeated, and emphatically expreſt in the context, v. 22, and 32, "Not for your ſakes do I this, ſaith the Lord God, be it known unto you. Be aſhamed, and conſounded for your own ways, O houſe of Iſrael." Yet ſtill for this, i. e. for the beſtowment of theſe ſpiritual bleſſings, will I be enquired of by the houſe of Iſrael to do it for them, ſaith the Lord God. As if the Almighty had ſaid, All this, and whatever elſe can be objected in this caſe, I am perfectly acquainted with; I know the ſinfulneſs of my people to the uttermoſt, as to their ſtate, and how vile they will be in every ſtep they take, in the uſe of means till their hearts are chang'd; and yet ſtill, it was my pleaſure to fix upon this way, as the order of my ordinary proceeding in diſpenſing ſaving mercy to them. I have inſtituted and appointed means, to be attended on by them to that end; and am unchangeably determined, ordinarily not to recede from the word, that is gone out of my mouth, or to counteract my own appointment by giving ſaving mercy to them, but in the way of being enquired of, to do it for them. Again,

3dly. It might be further obſerved here, that theſe words, as well as the promiſe of regenerating grace, are ſpoken by way of prediction; they are a prediction or prophecy of what God would do for Iſrael, and of what Iſrael ſhould be brought to do, by a common work of God's ſpirit, not as a condition, but as that whereby they ſhould be brought in to the way, in which God is pleaſed to diſpenſe his ſaving mercy to his covenant people. As if the Lord had ſaid, As for Iſrael my covenant people, they have by a long continued courſe of moſt abominable wickedneſs, reduced themſelves to an amazing degree of ſtupidity and hardneſs of heart, and to the utter neglect of my ordinances: Yet, as I have determined their recovery, by unſeigned repentance, I will open their blind eyes, awaken natural conſcience, ſeing their ſins to remembrance in their diſtreſs; rank them in order before them, and cauſe them under a feeling ſenſe of their guilt and periſhing condition, to bemoan themſelves, and cry to me for mercy, in a diligent attendance on means.

Thus the plain ſenſe of this text, if allowed to ſpeak for itſelf, free from all force put upon it by human art, is, that God's ordinary appointed way of diſpenſing ſaving mercy to his covenant people is their earneſt ſeeking to him for it, in a diligent attendance on all appointed means as above.

Moreover, that the ſenſe of this text, as held forth above, is the true and genuine ſenſe, may be further argued from the following particulars.

1ſt. That it flows naturally from the words, without any manner of force, according to ſtrict propriety of language: Whereas great impropriety attends fixing the other ſenſe upon them, as will be obvious to every one, by putting the caſe. And,

Firſt, in the latter ſenſe, I will yet for this be enquired of by the houſe of Iſrael, i. e. by the godly few, (perhaps one in a thouſand, or ten thouſand, in a time of ſuch deep and univerſal corruption) to do it for them, i. e. to beſtow on thoſe godly few, a new heart. But what heart muſt that be? ſure it muſt differ eſſentially from the new heart, they had received, whereby they became ſaints; otherwiſe it could not be new: Or the conſtruction muſt 〈◊〉 thus, to do it for them, i. e. not for them, but for others, that were unregenerate, Can either of theſe be the true conſtruction of theſe ſacred words? Certain it is, the former can't: Becauſe in what ever ſenſe, a new heart may be further given to the godly; yet that could by no means anſwer the prediction, which evidently relates to a great number of the Iſraelites being bro't to true repentance, and to the body of that people's being reformed. Or can the latter of theſe be true, to do it for them, i. e. not for them; but for others, for thoſe wicked Iſraelites, about to partake of regenerating grace? If either of theſe be fixed upon; where is the propriety or conſiſtency? Whereas, underſtanding theſe words in the ſenſe above, I am contending for; they run ſmooth, and free from that impropriety and force, otherwiſe involved in them, viz. that God's ordinary appointed way of diſpenſing ſaving mercy to his covenant people, is that of their earneſt ſeeking to him, in a diligent attendance on all appointed means, that he would beſtow it on them.

One thing that I would here a little inſiſt on, is, that the ſame ſinners, that are here comprehended under this phraſe, the houſe of Iſrael, from v. 17, down to the text under conſideration; and under this phraſe charged with having defiled their own land, before they went into captivity; and with having prophaned God's name among the heathen; and under this phraſe, have the beſtowment of God's ſaving mercy promiſed to them; and are aſſured by God, under this phraſe, that it was not for their ſakes, that he was about to beſtow theſe great and unſpeakable bleſſings; that the ſame perſons muſt, in all fairneſs of conſtruction, be ſtill underſtood as meant and intended, under the ſame phraſe uſed in the text, when 'tis ſaid, I will yet for this be enquired of by the houſe of Iſrael to do it for them. At leaſt they muſt not be excluded.

This, Mr. Hopkins denies; and makes it the buſineſs of a large diſcourſe on this text, to prove, that ſeeking God in the text, to do it for them; muſt be underſtood of ſeeking with a new heart, excluſive of any kind of ſeeking of theſe poor periſhing Iſraelites, that were about to be made partakers of ſaving mercy.

Sec, VI. p. 61,—70.

The enquiry here is, what good reaſon can be aſſigned, why the ſame phraſe ſhould not be of the ſame import, and have the ſame reference when uſed in the text, as it hath in every other inſtance, in which it is uſed down thro' the context? Eſpecially ſince it don't appear, that ever it was once uſed in the holy ſcriptures to diſtinguiſh ſaints from ſinners.

2dly. That the ſenſe of the text as above expreſt, is the true and genuine ſenſe of the words, may be argued, not only becauſe it flows naturally from them, free of all impropriety and force; but in regard the words taken in this ſenſe, hold forth an important truth. The former of theſe hath been ſeen above. The only point that remains to be proved is, that God's ordinary appointed way of diſpenſing ſaving mercy to his covenant people, is that of their earneſt ſeeking to him for it, in a diligent attendance on all appointed means.

The truth of which I take to be too evident to need any laborious proof. For,

(1) If God hath appointed prayer, and other means of grace to be earneſtly attended on by the unregenerate among his covenant people, as the way, in order to obtain his ſaving mercy; it can't agree to his infinite perfections to unravel his own work in this caſe, and counteract himſelf in his own appointment, by ordinarily granting ſaving mercy out of this his own appointed way, either to thoſe that wholly neglect the means of grace, or with great remiſſneſs, careleſneſs and indiferency attend upon them. So that if God has appointed means of grace, as above, as it is certain he hath, (otherwiſe he had not ſo ſignally blamed his vineyard, put under advantages) for not bringing forth grapes, Iſa • v. 1,—4. it is certain, that God's ordinary appointed way of diſpenſing ſaving mercy to his covenant people, is that of their earneſt ſeeking to him for it, in a diligent attendance on all appointed means. Again,

(2) If means of grace are not appointed by God, to be earneſtly attended on as above, will it not thence clearly follow, that God in requiring of his covenant people faith in Chriſt, as the condition of life, requires of them what is naturally impoſſible? Since without means, faith in Chriſt is ſo. But ſuch requirement can't agree to the perfections of God; therefore means of grace are appointed to be attended on as above

(3) This truth might be exemplified thro' the ſcriptures, were there occaſion. Thus Ephraim perſonating the ten tribes (being in exile) in their return to God by repentance, is heard bemoaning himſelf, and crying to God for mercy. "I have ſurely heard Ephraim bemoaning himſelf thus, thou haſt chaſtiſed me, and I was chaſtiſed, as a bullock unaccu •• omed to the 〈…〉 thou me, and I ſhall be turned."Jer. xxxi. 18. Where 'tis evident that while unconverted, he thus bemoans himſelf, confeſſing the juſtice of God's chaſtiſement, his own ſtubborneſs and unteachableneſs, and under conviction of the neceſſity of this change; his own impotency, and the inſufficiency of all means; he cries to God to work it in him. Turn thou me, and I ſhall be turned. And is represented as converted, while he ſtands praying for it, as is inconteſlibly clear from the following words, "For thou art the Lord my God, ſurely after I was turned, I repented, and after I was inſtructed, I ſmote upon my thigh," and ſo on.

The like might be abundantly proved concerning Judah brought to repentance in their return from the Babyloniſh captivity; which was brought about in the ſame way, by their being firſt made ſenſible of their ſinful, helpleſs ſtate; that as they had no power to deliver themſelves from their captivity in Babylon; ſo, much leſs had they power to deliver themſelves from their more miſerable captivity to ſin, prefigured by their captivity in Babylon; their language with reſpect to both theſe was, our bones are dryed, and our hope is loſt, we are cut off for our parts,Ezek. xxvii. 11. until the Lord in both theſe reſpects, cauſed a noiſe and behold a ſhaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the ſinews and fleſh came up upon them, and the ſkin covered them above. Now as all this was done for them politically by common providence, and common influence, when king Cyrus's proclamation came out, and God ſtirred up their hearts, there was a 〈◊〉 commotion, a running together from all parts; and great conſulting and adviſing no doubt about the affair, while as yet God had not inſpired them with that courage and reſolution that was neceſſary, in order to ſo grand an undertaking, as that of a return to their own land. So there can be no reaſonable doubt, but that all this was done ſpiritually for them, previous to their receiving the breath of ſpiritual life, and as means to ſtir them up to ſeek it in God's way, with great zeal and earneſtneſs, enquiring of him to do it for them, as in the text.

Again, as this truth is exemplified in God's dealing with the Jewiſh church, his covenant people, even the whole houſe of Iſrael under the law; ſo it ſtands in the ſame light, if we come down to the goſpel day. Thus the prodigal, who conſidered in his return to his father's houſe, was deſigned as a type or figure of the ordinary way of ſinners being brought ſavingly home to Chriſt; he was firſt made ſenſible of his periſhing ſtare; having ſpent all, there aroſe a mighty famine in the land; all attempts to fill his belly with the huſks that the ſwine did eat, utterly failed, no man gave unto him. He now began to be in want,Lu. xv. 14, 15, 16, and ſo on. felt himſelf in a famiſhing condition, for want of bread; this put him in earneſt upon thinking what he had done; and at all hope of relief, that now remained was from his father; he earneſtly look'd out for help in this way, and found relief. All this is a lively repreſentation of the ſinner's being brought to a feeling ſenſe of his periſhing want of the bread of life,Job. vi. 51. and that God only has it in his power to beſtow; and therefore with great earneſtneſs to look to God for it, as one that ſeeks bread when life is at ſtake, and that in this way, and not out of it, God's ſaving mercy is ordinarily diſpenſed.

Again, the same truth is exemplified in the compariſon made between the publican and phariſee, of whom 'tis ſaid the phariſee ſtood and prayed thus with himſelf, God I thank thee that I am not as other men, &c.Lu. xviii. 13, 14. The publican ſtanding afar off, would not ſo much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but ſmote upon his breaſt, ſaying, God be merciful to me a ſinner. I tell you this man went down to his houſe juſtified rather than the other.

The deſign of this parable, it ſeems, is plainly to repreſent the difference there is between the proud, stupid, ſelf righteous ſinner, and one that is legally humbled, brought to conviction, that the ſentence of condemnation he is under by the law, is juſt, and accordingly to cry to God for mercy, as his only plea. Where the preference is plainly given to the latter, in compariſon of the former; I tell you, ſays Chriſt, this man went down to his houſe juſtified, rather than the former. The latter is plainly repreſented in ſtate, not ſo far from the kingdom of God, as the former; the former as being the whole, that have no need of a phyſician, the latter as ſick, and ſenſible of his periſhing need. I am ſenſible ſome are of opinion, that the prayer of the publican, was the prayer of a ſaint; and that the compariſon here made by Chriſt, is deſigned to be a compariſon between the prayer of a ſaint, and a ſinner. In order to remove this miſtake, and esſtabliſh the true meaning of this parable, as above, I deſire the following particulars may be noticed.

1. That there does not appear any thing in the publican's prayer concluſive of his being a ſaint; no diſtinguishing character of a ſaint, nothing but what ſtrictly agrees to the prayer of a convinced, legally humbled ſinner.

2. It might be queried here, what the inſtruction is, ariſing from a compariſon, if made between the prayer of a ſaint, and a proud, ſtupid, ſelf juſtifying ſinner, in ſome reſpects, if not on the whole, the vileſt of all ſinners; that might agree to an infinite wiſdom, to hold forth to us, by ſuch a ſimilitude? Is it, that the prayer of a ſaint put up in faith, is more acceptable to God, than the prayer of one of the vileſt ſinners upon earth?

3. Is it attended with no difficulty, to reconcile the deciſion here given by Chriſt, on ſuppoſition the compariſon was made between the prayer of a ſaint and a ſinner, with his infinite perfections as God? Is this the whole truth? Does it agree with the ſcripture account in general, of the difference between a ſaint and a ſinner; Is it not the character of a ſaint to lift up his eyes with his heart to God in prayer, to draw near with full aſſurance of faith, and come boldly to a throne of grace?Heb. x. 19,—22. All which are directly the reverſe to the character here given to the poor dejected publican. But after all.

4. Suppoſe there ſhould be grounds in Chriſt's cloſing words, to perſuade, that he went down to his houſe truly juſtified: Yet even then the manner of expreſſion uſed, does not give us the leaſt intimation, that he came up from his houſe juſtified, but quite the reverſe, or that he prayed juſtified; ſo that, if this matter ſhould be ſo far conceeded, which is, I think, the moſt that can reaſonably be deſired, he is thereby but a more illuſtrious inſtance, to my purpoſe, of one converted, while he ſtood praying, or very ſoon conſequent thereon, at leaſt in the way as he returned home.

To conclude, if it had been the deſign of our Saviour, to give the true difference between the prayer of a ſaint and a ſinner: Is it not wonderful, there ſhould be ſo little of inſtruction held forth in it? And not one diſtinguiſhing mark of a ſaint found in it? Can this agree to the infinite perfections of Chriſt, as God? Whereas the parable taken in the other ſenſe above mentioned, is wonderfully ſuited to repreſent the difference between the prayer of a proud, ſtupid, ſelf-juſtifying ſinner, and a guilty humbled ſelf-condemning ſinner, applying to the mercy of God as the only hope that remained: And does clearly explicate thoſe words of our Saviour, The whole have no need of the phyſician, but the ſick. This proud, ſtupid, ſelf-juſtifying phariſee, is one that is whole, and needs no phyſician, And in his pride and ignorance, thanks God for it. The publican is one, that is ſick, feels his guilt and moral diſorder, as a deſperate and incureable diſeaſe, as to all created power, and therefore cries to God for help. Now if the whole and ſick mentioned by our Saviour, are rightly explained by the phariſee and publican, as above, and the words immediately following, viz. I came not to call the righteous, but ſinners to repentance, have reſpect to the whole and ſick, under the names of righteous and ſinners, as it is evident, I think, they have: Then it muſt clearly follow, that Chriſt's errand as a phyſician, for diſpenſing his ſaving grace, is not ſo immediately, with the proud, ſelf juſtifying ſinner, as with the humble, brought to ſee his periſhing need of mercy, and earneſtly to ſeek to God for it, in the uſe of all means.

Thus, if I miſtake not, this parable, of it ſelf, if rightly underſtood, ſufficiently confirms the truth I am contending for, that God will be inquired of by the unregenerate, viſibly related to him in covenant, in the diligent uſe of all means, for the beſtowment of his ſaving mercy. And in the ſucceſs, or preference given to the humble and earneſt cries of the publican, compared with the proud phariſee, we have a ſhining evidence of it.

I might now, were there occaſion, proceed to add the three thouſand and others, that were firſt made ſenſible of their ſin and guilt, and brought in earneſt to cry out for direction, what they muſt do, in order to a remedy previous to their receiving divine consolation. Nor do I ſee why the apoſtles evidence ſhould not be allowed in his own caſe, when he teſtifies he was ſlain by the law, and thro' the law dead to the law, previous, and that he might live to God. I might ſafely appeal to the experience of the 〈◊〉 , and to the univerſal voice of the holy ſcriptures; which abundantly ſhew that 'tis the ſeeking ſinner, that finds the pearl; the labouring and heavy laden, that finds reſt; the ſick and wounded that finds healing; the loſt that are found; and the dead that are made alive, i. e. thoſe that are ſenſibly ſo. But I paſs to give a hint or two of the uſefulneſs and importance of this truth. And,

1. In addition to the important purpoſes, it is made to ſubſerve, as mentioned above, another is its excellent uſe, to awaken the ſecure, who live in the careleſs neglect of means; and point out to them the imminent danger they are in, being wide and remote from the way, in which God's ſaving mercy is wont to be diſpenſed.

2. As it often ſerves greatly to excite the ſinner weary and heavy laden, to exert himſelf in the uſe of means, as being the only way of hope, or encouragement of finding mercy.

3. As it mightily ſupports againſt diſparing thoughts, when the ſinner is tempted to give up all hope of ever attaining mercy, while he finds within, nothing but a fountain of ſin, deſert of puniſhment, and an accuſing conſcience; without, a violated law, an incenſed, ſin-revenging Deity, floods of impending wrath every moment ready to break upon him. What is it that ſupports the ſinner in this awful moment, but the truth under conſideration, hope what a ſovereign grace may do for him in this way, tho' not in the leaſt for his cries; yet it is evident it is in this way, as being God's way, and not out of is, not in the way of caſting off fear and reſtraining prayer before God, that he is ſupported.

The way in which many, as I apprehend, have been led to miſtake the meaning of theſe words, is by underſtanding them as a conditional promiſe made by the Almighty to his covenant people, of the beſtowment of certain ſpiritual bleſſings, if they ſaught him in truth; like that of our ſaviour, Aſk, and it ſhall be given you.Matt. vii. 7. Whereas nothing of this nature, to my underſtanding, is here intended. The words are ſpoken in the way of a prediction or prophecy; and ſhewed them what God had abſolutely, not conditionally, determined to accomplish for his people. And may fitly be termed an abſolute unconditional promiſe, as is common in the ſcripture. Two things are here abſolutely promiſed relating to theſe ſpiritual bleſſings.

1. That God would beſtow them, and the time when clearly pointed out, viz. when he brought them into their own land, which he there promiſes; "Then will I ſprinkle clean water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean from all your filthineſs, and from all your idols will I cleanſe you. A new heart alſo will I give you, and a new ſpirit will I put within you, and I will take away the ſtony heart out of your fleſh. And I will put my ſpirit within you, and cauſe you to walk in my ſtatutes," &c.v. 25, 28.

2. The way or means, by which this great work ſhould be accompliſhed, is clearly pointed out and predicted, viz. their being brought to ſeek it, enquire of God for it, as in the text. This God promiſes they ſhall do. And hereby the grand objection, that lay againſt accompliſhing the beſtowment of theſe great bleſſings was taken up. The objection ſtood thus, Lord thou haſt promiſed the accompliſhment of a great and marvellous work among thy people Iſrael, to bring them to repentance, and cleanſe them from all their idols. Which conſidering to what a deſperate ſtate they are reduced, how they have caſt away thy laws, neglected thy worſhip and ordinances, are ſwallowed up in idolatry: And that this has for a long time been their caſe: By what poſſible means can this wonderful work be accompliſhed in them, a work equal to that of their being brought up out of their graves? Shall it be in an extraordinary, miraculous way, ſince they utterly caſt off all means? Nay, as if the Lord had expreſſly ſaid in the text, they ſhall be brought to ſeek me in a diligent attendance on my ſtated worſhip and ordinances. All which was exactly accompliſhed, on their return to their own land; when the altar of God was ſet up, and they brought willingly to reform what was amiſs, and with great zeal and concern to attend on God's worſhip and ordinances, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.Ezr. iii. Neh. viii.

All this is without any intimation of a ſuſpending condition to be performed by the people, as that, on which this wonderful work of God depended. No condition here, but what is abundantly promiſed.

Should it be enquired here, but muſt the gracious prayers of ſaints be excluded from being comprehended in the text, and the worthleſs prayers of the wicked Iſraelites, about to be made the ſubjects of God's ſpecial grace, ſubſtituted in their room?

Anſ. 1. Nither the prayers of the ſaints, or of the unregenerate are neceſſary, conſidered as proper conditions for the beſtowment of theſe ſpiritual bleſſings. Since, as hath been obſerved, they are promiſed abſolutely and without conditions. Nor.

2. Do I ſee, as ſaints and ſinners make up the whole houſe of Iſrael, why both may not here be underſtood, as brought to ſeek the Lord together, on this grand occaſion, in a diligent attendance on his worſhip and ordinances.

Should it be objected here, that then very different things muſt be underſtood, by that enquiring of God mentioned in the text. I anſwer, and where is the inconſiſtency of this? Does not the goſpel reach all that are under the advantages of it, viſibly related to God, to deny ungodlineſs, and worldly luſts, and live ſoberly, &c. And is not a gracious manner of refraining from ungodlineſs, and practicing juſtice, charity, &c. Sometimes found with the godly, a very different thing from all that the unregenerate can do 〈◊〉 and can any one ſay with truth, that the goſpel in no ſenſe requires, what the unregenerate, related to God, as above, can do? Sure he cannot.

And now, ſeeing the ſenſe in which I underſtand the text, under conſideration, is a divine truth, clearly held forth throughout the ſcriptures, a truth of no ſmall importance, and ſeeing it flows naturally from the words, without any the leaſt impropriety, or force put upon them, while putting the ſenſe, I ſuppoſe, attended with much difficulty. Can any reaſonable doubt remain, whether it be the true and genuine ſenſe of the text? I appeal to the learned and judicious reader.

The only apology I ſhall make, for dwelling ſo largely on the ſenſe of this text, is contained in the author's cloſing words on the ſame text, viz. Becauſe it it ſo ſtrangely miſunderſtood, not only by the doctor, but by many others.

It will perhaps be expected, from the hints above, I ſhould a little explain what I mean by new divinity; which I ſhall do by reciting a paſſage or two from the author referred to. What ſo ever (ſays the author) I do, however aſſiſted or prompted, is ſtill my own work, otherwiſe the moſt common actions of life could not be called our own. Since in theſe we have aſſiſtance.Letters to Theron and Aſpacio, v. I. p. 33.

I mention this paſſage, not becauſe it is more erronious than many others; but becauſe, ſo far as I diſcern, it was the author's firſt turning aſide from, and darkening the truth, in the letters referred to. It ſeems it was on deſign of laying the foundation of one of his favourite principles, viz. that man is meerly paſſive in ſaving faith. Two things in this paſſage darken, or are inconſiſtent with truth.

1. Terming an act of faith, or believing, comprehended under this phraſe, what ſo ever I do a work, contrary to the uſage of ſcripture, which ever keeps up a diſtinction between faith and works,Ro. xi. 6. iv. 16. and treats them as contraries that exclude each other in the buſineſs of juſtification. And therefore to coaſter them one into the other, and term one the other as the author here does, is to throw darkneſs and confuſion upon the holy ſcriptures.

2. On ſuppoſition, ſaving faith is comprehended, as it muſt be in the author's words, as above; the argument is weak and inconcluſive, as will be ſeen by every one that conſiders. That the point here to be proved by the author, is that ſaving faith, if an act, if any thing done by us, is our own, in the ſame ſenſe, as the moſt common actions of life are. The argument to prove this, is, that it is performed by the ſame aſſiſtance, that the moſt common actions of life are. But it this true? Is it not evident to all, that the moſt common actions of life are performed by the meer concurrence of common providence, ſupporting our natural life and powers? And are we able thro' this meer concurrence of common providence, to believe unto ſalvation? Sure nothing is further from truth.

Again, It is the ſame thing (ſays this author) whether we talk of obtaining righteouſneſs by the law of Moſes, by the light of nature or by Chriſt, if any ſolicitude of ours be held needful to obtain it. • . • . p. 27.

Here again, the author is really in the clouds. I appeal to the common ſenſe of mankind, what can be the meaning of this wonderful paſſage? Is it that all the ſolicitude, care and pains of ſinners, can't produce faith in the blood of Chriſt that intereſts in his righteouſneſs? Is it, that there is nothing in all their attainments, that can claim it? Nothing that is holy, ſpiritual and pleaſing to God? No poſſitive moral fitneſs, that can recommend to, or in the leaſt be a motive to the beſtowment of it? If this is all, What hinder'd ſo ingenious an author coming out of the clouds, and telling us plainly, in few words, that this was what he meant, that we might, ſo far, be one with him?

But it ſeems ſomething more than all this it here meant. And what can that be, but that the ſolicitude and concern of ſinners to obtain righteouſneſs by Chriſt, is in no ſenſe to be held needful! Becauſe if it is, then to talk of obtaining righteouſneſs by Chriſt, is the ſame thing as to talk of obtaining of it by the law of Moſes or the light of nature.

Thus we are come at length to the true and genuine meaning of this wonderful paſſage; the ſenſe in which the words muſt neceſſarily terminate; and which, generally ſpeaking, is imbraced by all that fall in with this, new divinity, ſo far as my acquaintance reaches. And hence, it ſeems, it is, that ſome that are, or have been publick teachers, tell us, that God don't require any eſſays, endeavours, or ſolicitous concern of the unregenerate in the uſe of means, to repent and believe. He requires (ſay they) faith and repentance, but no eſſays, endeavours, or ſolicitous concern in the uſe of means to perform theſe duties. Does not a command to thoſe under the advantages of the goſpel, to ſeek righteouſneſs by Chriſt in the way of faith and repentance, imply in it a command to that attendance on means, to thoſe eſſays, and to that ſolicitous concern without which it is naturally impoſſible? Sure if God commands men to believe & repent, as the way of obtaining righteouſneſs by Chriſt; 'tis not in a way naturally impoſſible. But to command theſe duties, without any attendance to means, without any eſſay, endeavour, or ſolicitous concern to perform them; is to command them in a way naturally impoſſible. Am I under the advantages of the goſpel, commanded to believe and repent, as the way to obtain righteouſneſs by Chriſt, on pain of eternal damnation? And not thereby required to be ſolicitous to believe and repent? What I required to do it, on pain of eternal damnation, and not thereby required in any ſenſe to be concerned or ſolicitous about it? Strange! Is not this ſtrange divinity, and as ſtrange reaſoning? And yet this is evidently the true and genuine ſenſe of the author, as may be further ſeen in what follows. The author having paſſed ſome hundred pages in profound ſilence, as to any the leaſt intimation of any thing, ſo far as I remember, to be done by the unregenerate, as means in order to obtain faith, at length puts the queſtion, with the anſwer in the following words, viz.

"Queſ. How is faith to be obtained?"

Anſ. How have the moſt remarkable diſcoveries, that have ſerved moſt for the accomodation of human life been obtained? Did not the polar direction of the Magnet obtrude itſelf on the firſt discoverer when he was in queſt of no ſuch thing, &c. &c.v. ii. p. 133.

Theſe paſſages terminate very much in the ſame thing. The former holds forth, that there is no need of any ſolicitous concern of the ſinners, to obtain righteouſneſs by Chriſt: That to hold any ſuch concern needful, makes obtaining righteouſneſs by Chriſt, as impoſſible as obtaining of it by the law of Moſes, or any other impoſſible way: The latter teaches, that the way to obtain faith, is not to be in queſt of it at all, i.e. not to ſeek it, or care any thing about it; that if ever we obtain it, it will obtrude itſelf upon us, in ſome careleſs moment, when we have no thought or concern about it, The ſpirit speaketh expreſsly, that in the latter times, ſome ſhall depart from the faith, giving heed to ſeducing ſpirits and doctrines of devils.1 Tim iv. • .

Now, tho' I wou'd be far from giving ſevere and harſh epithets; yet ſo far, I think, we may ſafely determin in the fear of God, that if this careleſs, thoughtleſs unconcernedneſs to obtain faith, is that ſeeking of it required of ſinners; the devil and the corruption of mens hearts, in theſe degenerate times, ſufficiently prompts them to it, without its being preach'd. So that the work of preachers, who are of this opinion, is almoſt every where already awfully done to their hand.

Obj 1. Should it be objected here, that all this is deſigned only to bring ſinners thoroughly off from their own righteouſneſs; Which ſo far as it prevails, is a fatal bar in the way of their coming to Chriſt.

Anſ. To bring ſinners off from their own righteouſneſs, is an important work. Thouſands, it is to be fear'd, have periſhed by that ſnare: But then it muſt be attempted in and not out of God's way, by truth and not by falſhood, we muſt not be wiſe above what is written: While we attempt to ſcare men from truſting in their duties, care muſt he had, that we don't ſcare them from their duties, either by inſinuating, that they are more vile in that attendance they are capable of, while unregenerate, than in the neglect of it; or by denying that the ordinary appointed way of God's diſpenſing his ſaving mercy to his covenant people, is that of his being inquired of by them, in a diligent attendance on all means, to beſtow it on them, as above,

Obj. 2. But if after all, it ſhould be objected here, that by the unregenerate's being in queſt of faith, and ſolicitous to obtain righteouſneſs by Chriſt, is meant their being ſo in ſtrict propriety of ſpeech, deſirous of theſe ſpiritual bleſſings for themſelves, and from the delight they have in them. That as this never was or can be the caſe with the unregenerate: So in this way righteouſneſs by Chriſt can no more be obtained than by the law of Moſes.

Anſ. If this was truly the author's meaning, it ought to have been ſo expreſs. And then who would have troubled themſelves about it? 〈◊〉 as it is expreſt in general, left at large, and naturally liable to be underſtood to exclude all ſolicitude to obtain righteouſneſs by Chriſt, and of being in queſt of faith in any ſenſe, it is not true, tends to confuſion, and is therefore juſtly liable to exception.

To illuſtrate this matter by a plain ſimile. Suppoſe for inſtance, A. is ſtruck with mortification in his foot, and under apprehenſion of imminent danger is to life; is earneſtly deſirous of amputation; ſends far and wide for a ſkilful ſurgeon, to perform the operation. B. takes it in his head to report equally far and wide, that A. is utterly averſe to the operation, that all ſhow of being in queſt of it, and ſolicitous to obtain it, was a meer pretence, that had no truth in it. However, on the arrival of the ſurgeon, A. chearfully ſubmits to the operation, and is recovered. In the mean time, contradictions riſe ſo high among the people relating to this matter, ſome affirming, and others denying, that B. is accuſed of ſpreading a falſe report: Pleads he only meant, that A. did not deſire the operation of the knife and ſaw for it ſelf; and ſo did not properly and directly deſire it. That he knew as well as any one, that on the whole, A. was earneſtly in queſt of it, and very ſolicitous to obtaain it. What would the common ſenſe of mankind ſay of B.? Wou'd it not ſay, he was rather too fond of his metaphyſicks, to ſet all the world a ſtaring for a thing of nought? For who ever once imagined, that A. was deſirous of the operation for its own ſake? Or at the ſame time doubted whether he was, on the whole, earneſtly deſirous of it, and ſolicitous to obtain it, conſider'd in connexion with the hope he thereby entertained of ſaving his precious life.

In like manner, ſinners. tho' they deſire not Chriſt for himſelf, his righteouſneſs, and ſalvation, for that holineſs in which it greatly conſiſts: Yet when they come to ſee their periſhing ſtate, under the guilt of ſin, that nothing ſhort of an intereſt in Chriſt and his righteouſneſs by faith, can ſave them from everlaſting burning, it can't be ſaid with truth, that they do in no ſenſe deſire Chriſt and his righteouſneſs.

Nor do I ſee it poſſible to reconcile this new ſentiment, with the expreſs declarations of God's word, as quoted above, and other texts that might be mentioned. Thus when our Saviour aſſures us, that many will ſeek to enter, i. e. at the ſtrait gate, and ſhall not be able. Are not theſe words evidently ſpoken of the unregenerate? And do they in no ſenſe repreſent ſo much as ſaint attempts of ſuch to believe on Chriſt, and thereby enter upon the chriſtian life, a life of goſpel holineſs. Which ſure muſt be the meaning of entering in at the ſtrait gate, in the firſt ſenſe of the words, to which we are here exhorted, what ever ſecondary reference they may have to entering into heaven after death.

So when it is expreſsly ſaid, that Eſau ſaught repentance carefully, and with tears. Is there no attempts of Eſau towards repentance in any ſenſe, repreſented by theſe words? No kind of deſires or endeavours after it? When 'tis expreſsly ſaid, he ſaught it carefully, and with tears. What! not ſo much as from ſelf-love? When the above quoted author obſerves, that ſelf love does not only in innumerable reſpects, reſtrain from acts of true wickedneſs,—but puts men upon ſeeking true virtue.Preſ. Edwards on the nature of true vertue, Ch. vii. p. 133. Wou'd it not be expreſsly to deny the truth of the holy ſcriptures, to deny that Eſau in any ſenſe ſaught repentance?

The like inquiry may be made on thoſe words of ſaint Paul, Know ye not, that they which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run that ye may obtain, Do not theſe words repreſent the whole body of chriſtian profeſſors, that join in chriſtian worſhip, and the obſervance of all chriſtian inſtitutions, as being in ſome ſenſe in the chriſtian race, as running for eternal life? Are 〈◊〉 here repreſented as being in any ſenſe in this race; but true and real ſaints: Since many are here repreſented as running, that will fail and come ſhort of prize?