PLEASE to turn your eye on what you have wrote in the close of your 3d page, in the 4th, and first half of the 5th, and seriously compare it with what I told you when you was at my house last fall. I then told you, ‘I had not read the whole of your Inquiry, but only some extracts sent me by a Gentleman, in whose faithfulness I could fully confide; from which I had given what you had read in my Dialogue.’ When you said, ‘Mr. Mills had wrote against the doctrine I remarked upon as yours, and that you, in answering him, had answered or obviated my objections against it, and that I ought to have waited till I had seen your answer:’ I replied, ‘I had not seen Mr. Mills's piece, and had only heard in general that he had wrote against you, but did not know till now that he had opposed that doctrine of yours I remarked upon: And as to your answer to him, I had never heard of it before. You said it had been advertised several months past. I told you it might be so but I had never heard any thing of the matter till now; and added, I am sorry I did not know of it in season, I would have waited a little to have seen it; but I did not tell you I was sorry for what I had wrote. I further added to this purpose, that I did not design what I wrote upon your doctrine, as a full answer to all your reasonings in its defence, but to make my own remarks upon it, viewing of it in various lights, not regarding whether the whole directly opposed your reasonings or not.’ —I believe, Sir, you remember this conversation; I remember it well.

Having read the above to Mr. Chapman, he gave me the follow­ing under his hand, and I present it to you.

How inconsistent with truth is the idea you raise in your readers mind? In the passages pointed to you above, you represent the case to the reader, and reason upon it, as supposing it true that I knew Mr. Mills had before wrote against that doctrine of yours which I censured as false, and that you was publishing a reply and vindica­tion of it; and on this supposition paint me in a false light, and flourish your colours in a characteristic manner. How could you do so? You must have strangely forgot what I told you, or de­signedly imposed on your readers by giving them a very wrong view of the matter, injurious to your brother, and calculated to raise in them an unjust resentment against him. Do you think, Sir, our great Master will say to you, in respect to this, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant?’ Surely such carnal weapons of of­fence very ill become the hands of the ministers of righteousness.

You say, Sir, ‘Mr. H's friend took such care not to transcribe any of my arguments for the sentiment I espoused, that he care­fully passed over the only sentence in the first paragraph he trans­cribed, which contained a reason for it, tho' he transcribed the words immediately before and after it.’ (p. 5.) I told you, when at my house, I had taken some things out of the extracts sent me. I aimed to take enough to give my reader a just idea of the doc­trine I designed to remark upon, and omitted some other things. So you don't know whether the omission you complain of was by my friend or me.—I observe you don't censure the extracts I pub­lished as giving a wrong representation of your doctrine. Indeed you could not, without being condemned out of your own mouth. The reports to the contrary which have been spread among the people are intirely without ground. If I had transcribed all you say upon this doctrine in your Inquiry, and answer to Mr. Mills, the doctrine would have appeared just the same as it does in the ex­tracts I gave, except in some views of it, more exceptionable.

To what purpose is the loud outcry you have raised? Do you think, Sir, that a man who has been in the ministry more than thirty years, and not wholly inattentive to what the scripture saith, is taxable with presumptuous rashness in censuring and remarking on a doctrine as false, which you have affirmed as true, unless he has first weighed and answered all you have said in its defence? Indeed if I had undertaken to give a particular answer to all your argu­ments in support of the error, I ought to have done it. My title [Page 4] page expressed my design: 'Brief Remarks on a number of false pro­positi [...], '&c.—Indeed I intended at first to have censured more of your dangerous errors, and took some pains to procure your books or proper extracts out of them, but was unhappily disap­pointed, and so obliged to forbear. Will you, Sir, forgive me this wrong?

You say, (p. 5.) ‘I have such an opinion of Mr. H. that I doubt not he is sorry for what he has done, and heartily ashamed of it.’ I have not seen cause yet, to extend my sorrow further than to what I mentioned to you at my house. I am indeed sorry you have so injuriously misrepresented the state of facts, and hope you will be so too.

In the next paragraph you say, ‘If it should be asked, How could Mr. H say he had collected a few things out of many which are faulty, when he had never seen any thing I had wrote, except the words he produces? I must leave him to answer this question.’ Since you are so mightily puzzled by it, I will do it. ‘I had been informed by more than one credible person,’ (see your fifth page) yea, by more than two or three credible persons, gentlemen of good memory, judgment and integrity, who had read your Inquiry and sermons, what new and strange doctrines you had taught in them. On the foot of this evidence I thought I might warrantably say in general, that your writings contained many things faulty. I have since read your Inquiry and Sermons, and find I was not imposed upon, and that, as the Queen of Sheba said to Solomon, the one half was not told me.

You quote these words, (p. 6.) ‘For their lusts sake they bear partial enmity to the law of God;’ and reason from them as tho' I here used the word partial in a sense directly opposed to total.— Don't you know, Sir, that you have here concealed my sentiment from your reader, and substituted a very different one in its place? Is this to use him well? If you read what preceeds and follows this little scrap of a sentence, with due attention, I think you could not but perceive I used the word partial there, in the same sense as when we say of a corrupt judge, he is partial in his judgment. See the dialogue, p. 57, 58.

In your 5th page you say, ‘I implicitly grant that you and Dr. Whitaker are both right, if the doctrine of man's total depravity is admitted,’ (you had, I believe, no warrant to say so) ‘and that the doctrine of regeneration by the immediate operation of the Spirit of God will follow, the doctrine of total depravity being allowed.’ Is this a blunder, Sir, or an instance of art? I neither denied, nor reasoned against the immediate operation of the Spirit, &c. but only against an operation without the word of gospel truth, which you gentlemen have taught. The Spirit's operation may [Page 5] be immediate, and yet be with the truth. If instead of immediate, you had said the physical, miraculous operation of the Spirit, without giving light or communicating truth to the mind, this would have been a fair and just stating of the matter.—I observe, Sir, though you carefully avoid using the word physical in your writings on this subject, yet you use the word immediate in such a manner as must convey to the discerning reader the same idea.

You say, sir, (p. 6.) ‘The dispute between him and me does, by his own acknowlegement, turn upon the doctrine of man's total depravity:’ (a very unwarrantable assertion) ‘And Mr. H. has no other way to oppose Dr. Whitaker or me, but by denying this doctrine.’ (You are greatly mistaken in this, sir.)— ‘The doctrine of man's total corruption in his natural unrenewed state, which has been held by all sound calvinists from the reformation down to this day, and is expressly asserted by the assembly of divines at Westminster, in their confession and catechisms: This doctrine, I say, is as false and dangerous an error as any of those Mr. H. has opposed in Dr. W. or me: and more so if possible, as the former is the foundation of the latter; so that these can­not be opposed but by opposing that, which is really the only thing in dispute.’ —This, sir, is a very extraordinary passage. I suppose sound calvinists hold the general doctrine of man's total corruption; and that they do approve the substance of the West­minster confession and catechisms: But they are not obliged ex­actly to agree in every tittle with that assembly, in the explanation they give of this corruption, in order to be sound calvinists, any more than with you and Dr. W. in your explanations. Howe­ver, I believe they do generally like the Westminster definition better than yours. They agree in the general doctrine of a total corruption, but their modes of explaining of it, circumstantially differ; as the modes of explaining the doctrine of the trinity, used by the trinitarians do; and yet these are all sound calvinists, as the other are sound trinitarians. ^§ There is a distinction to be made [Page 6] Sir, between sound and perfect. Perhaps you are disposed to com­pliment yourself as a perfect Calvinist: but I think if you can pos­sibly be admitted at all as a Calvinist, you ought to be esteemed a corrupt one, relating to the doctrines now in view. You, sir, and Dr. W. with some others among us, have carried orthodoxy to such prodigious excess that it is, in your hands, degenerated into heterodoxy. But is it not a presumptuous thing in you to set up yours, and Dr. W's particular explanations of the general doctrine of the total depravity as the standard of soundness in this article? What possible pretence can you have for this, more than the vene­rable Mr. Baxter, Dr. Watts, Dr. Doddridge, and a thousand more great names? There are, sir, great numbers of sound Calvinists who will never consent to lie down and be stretched upon your bed. None indeed need to fear their feet will be cut off as too long.

But let us, sir, view the standard you have implicitly set up as the rest of a sound belief relating to the doctrine of the corruption of nature. It is this, ‘The enmity of man's heart is levelled directly against God's whole moral character as being hateful to the natu­ral man, in itself, or for its own sake; that this enmity is wro't into the very frame of the human heart, and is of such a nature- and so confirmed a principle, that no possible applications of gos­pel truths to the mind and heart can subdue or weaken it: The Spirit of God himself can't overcome it by applyimg gospel truth and the doctrines of grace to the heart. But on the contrary, the more a natural man sees of the light and truth of God's cha­racter, the more in proportion does his hatred of it rise and exert itself.’ This, sir, is a just summary of the doctrine you and Dr. W. have taught relating to the natural enmity. I know indeed you do both of you frequently contradict yourselves; but this doctrine comes out at last as what you hold to. I could easily collect as large a section of striking inconsistencies from your Inqui­ry and Sermons, as you have from the aged Mr. Mills; but that would not please or edify the public more than your fragrant posey did.

But is it really as you say, that a man can't disbelieve and oppose this doctrine concerning the enmity, but he must disbelieve, and consequentially deny the doctrine of a total corruption? Is this latter doctrine really the only thing in dispute? You could not have suggested any thing more exceptionable. You have put the controversy upon a wrong foot; no sound Calvinist will join issue with you here. The general doctrine of the total depravity is not [Page 7] at all in dispute. Men who admit this doctrine do, and may very consistently deny your doctrine concerning the nature of the en­mity: for they believe the corruption is of the moral kind, and in its nature curable by an application of that supernatural doctrine of truth and grace which came by Jesus Christ, in such a manner as the holy Spirit knows how to apply it. There is an essential differ­ence between your doctrine concerning the enmity, (on which that other doctrine I opposed, is built) and their doctrine of the corrup­tion.—Indeed, sir, it appears to me, that you have treated your readers very ill, in thus making them lose sight of the merits of the cause, and substituting quite another thing in its place, as being, you tell them, 'really the only thing in dispute.' Some, no doubt, will believe you, and be filled with fervent zeal And the glory will be yours of blowing up an unhallowed flame, founded in misre­presentation. If you have misled them thro' inadvertence and without design; I hope they will easily forgive you this wrong: But if it was done with design, it is artful enough, but how un­faithful!

I hope, sir, for your sake, it was only a confusion in your tho'ts that caused you so wrongly to state the controversy. Perhaps sir, you will say, I have not told you what my sentiments are relating to the general doctrine of a total corruption. I have told you what they are not. I will further say, in general, I apprehend they are much nearer the Calvinistic doctrine than yours are, and to the scriptures of truth. But you appear to have a great disposition to have your readers think me an Arminian; and I suppose, think you shall find your account in it. I suffer you to enjoy the plea­sure. Perhaps I may soon have opportunity to let the public know more fully what my sentiments are relating to these matters.

What you say, p. 8. I pass over as unworthy of notice — It affords a striking instance of unfairness and misrepresentation. As such I recommend it to your serious review.

I observe, sir, that in your following pages, you very carefully keep up the misrepresentation of the merits of the controversy, which I took notice of above, and labour to persuade your readers it is genuine Calvinism that is opposed as a new system of errors. In this you impose upon your readers. Some will see it, others will not.— You say, p 9. ‘I question whether an author can, with a right temper and view, take this method to run any doc­trine down, by appealing to the prejudices of the people’ Why then did you do so? You have done it, I think, in an extraordina­ry manner.

You are pleased to censure me very severely for calling the scheme of doctrines, some of which I remarked upon, a new scheme. And refer to the synod of Dort, and Westminster assembly as [Page 8] teachers of these things, and say, ‘if I had called all the calvinistie doctrines quite new, it would not have been more contrary to apparent fact.’ p. 10, 11, 12. Some of your brethren in this scheme have acknowledged it in some respects new, they speak of new discoveries & further improvements in divinity. I heard one of them, not long since, in a public discourse, after he had drawn the outlines of the new scheme, apply himself to obviate the pre­judice that might arise against it as in some measure new; and to this purpose he observed, that new discoveries & further improve­ments had lately been made in philosophy, and other branches of natural science, and why should not the like be expected in divini­ty? I wish you gentlemen, had made any further improvements in true divinity.

If sir, you had fairly represented the doctrines I remarked upon as erroneous, you would have made but a poor figure in represent­ing of them as the ancient and established doctrines of calvinism, and of the Westminster assembly of divines.—Suffer me sir, to present you with a number of doctrines which belong to that scheme of divinity I call a new scheme. A just summary of the doctrines concerning the enmity I have given you above. To these I add the following, viz. ‘Men are not converted to God— by any rational arguments, whereby their hearts are perswaded to turn from sin to God.— I don't think that regeneration is ef­fected.—by presenting the things of religion to their minds, or even by opening their eyes to see them.’ ^(a) ‘Light and truth, or the word of God is not, in any degree, the means by which this change is effected.’ ^(b) I refer you to your sermons for many more corrupt doctrines which belong to the new scheme of divi­nity. I do not ask you to prove your new doctrines true, by the holy scriptures. This I know is impossible. But prove them to be calvinistic, by the Westminster assembly of divines, and fairly reconcile them with the following propositions delivered by them, and I will no longer call your scheme new, tho' it is very corrupt and destructive. In their confession, chap. 10th, they say, God does effectually call the elect, ‘by his word and spirit,— enlight­ning their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away the heart of stone,’ &c. In their brief sum of christian doctrine, which was also received by the general assembly of the calvinistic church of Scotland, they say, Head 3d. ‘The outward means for making men partakers of the covenant of grace are so wisely dispenced as the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them. These means are 1st. the word of God.’ Under the 4th head they say, ‘By these outward ordinances’ (means of grace) ‘our Lord, in the power of his Spi­rit, [Page 9] applies unto the elect all saving graces, and maketh a change in their persons. 1st. He doth convert OR REGENERATE them by giving spiritual life unto them.’ (How does he effect this?) ‘In opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections & faculties.’ Surely sir, this Westminster bed is shorter than that you can stretch yourself upon it; the covering is narrower than that you can decently wrap yourself in it.—Perhaps you will say, Divines sometimes distinguish between passive and active con­version, &c. Some do express themselves in this obscure, improper manner. To speak more intelligibly, their is a distinction to be made between the action of the Spirit of God on the mind, in which the mind is passive as acted upon, and the action of the mind answering thereto. The Westminster assembly speak to this purpose in their confession, chap. 10. art. 2. spe [...]g of God's effectual call of man, they say, ‘he is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and embrace the grace offered.’ Your doctrine essentially differs from theirs in this; you say to this purpose, this action of the Spirit quickening or regenerating the mind, is wholly without impressing on the mind any idea or sense of the truth, or communicating any new light to the soul, a mere act of creating power, and that the truth is not used by him at all as a means and instrument in this work: (this sir, is the doc­trine you and Dr. W. have plainly taught, and which I opposed) but they teach to this purpose, as we have seen above, that in the quickening action, or regenerating work of the Spirit he uses gos­pel truth as his means or instrument, inlightening the mind spi­ritually and savingly to understand the things of God, impressing a strong sense of them on the heart, under, and by which action and influence the man is quickened and enabled to answer the call and embrace the grace offered. So we must understand them, or they will be involved in contradiction.

In this view of their doctrine it is true. It is you sir, who are departed from the Westminster doctrine in this particular.—You also say, Repentance preceeds faith, but they represent it as the fruit of faith, as all sound calvinists do. In their shorter catechism they say, ‘Repentance is a saving grace, whereby a sinner out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God.’

You observe sir, (p. 12.) that in my dialogue, I say, God gra­ciously subdues the enmity, changes and reconciles the soul, by letting in the light, and sweet, attractive sense of his holy truth and love; and that I add, ‘The new divines indeed are so bold as to say, all this is not sufficient to convert and reconcile one soul.’ On this you [Page 10] are pleased to say, ‘Mr. H. cannot find, I trust, any divine, old or new, that ever did, or ever will say this. I think I may safely pronounce this as false a proposition as can be collected from any author whatever.’ Please sir, to turn your eye on what I quoted from Dr. Whitaker just now; and observe these other passages in his sermons, ‘The wonderful manifestations of God's love and grace in the gospel, with all the moving and melting accents of his mercy, are not sufficient to prevail with one sinner to make up the quarrel with God. p. 44. The manifestation of the divine glory by Christ, transcends every other method in which God hath revealed his perfection;— but all this serves not to engage unrenewed man to love, but more sensibly to abhor God, in proportion to the clearer manifestation of his nature and perfection.’ p. 50. If so God does not subdue the enmity, con­vert and reconcile the soul, by letting in the light, and attractive sense of his holy truth and love. For the sense thereof acts in the heart as a repulsive force.—

Mr. Hopkins, in his sermon on Joh. 1.13. says, ‘Light is not, cannot be given antecedent to regeneration in order to influence or change the heart or will.—The more the divine character, and the things of God's moral kingdom — are seen and understood — by such an one,’ (by any man who is not first regenerated and changed) 'the greater will be the mind's disgust at them.' and the more it will hate them p. 41, 42. 'Light and truth is not in any degree the means by which this change is effected.' p. 39. He says much more to the same purpose.

I trust, sir, you will admit these gentlemen as good witnesses. If you do, my proposition, which you say is notoriously false, is fully proved to be true, and my accuser turns out poorly. I am sorry for him; but see no way how you can bring him off but by saying, Mr. Hopkins and Dr. W. are no divines.—Many other charges of false assertions, as indefensible as that above, I pass over unno­ticed, particularly that poor one in the margin, p. 13. and that mean suggestion in the margin, p. 16.

I observe, sir, you complain of injury and falshood in that I sometimes call the new doctrines Sandemanean errors. When you objected this to me at my house, I answered that the new scheme and Sandeman's are near akin, coincident in some things, and both come to much the same issue. More than this is not pretended in the dialogue, tho' in some particular passages I may have expressed myself too loosely. If your smiting was that of the righteous, I would esteem it as excellent oil. But unhappily for you, you are come abroad this time in the spirit of a Jew at the close of his fast. As the teachers of the new scheme of doctrine had not given it a new name, I was a little in doubt what name it ought to be called by. [Page 11] Calvinism I could not call it, without misleading my readers. It appeared to me much nearer related to Sandeman than to Calvin, so I sometimes loosely called it the Sandemanean scheme. But since it displeases, I forbear. Please, sir, to give the poor stranger a proper name. It is your right to name your own children. If it is called after your own name, I believe nobody will be displeased.

You, sir, labour to convince your readers that I have embraced several of Mr. Sandeman's distinguishing doctrines and know it not, (p. 14.) This is pleasant enough. First of all you represented me as agreeing with the Devil, (p. 8.) now with Mr. Sandeman. If your wrath rise a little higher, I fear you will undertake next to prove that I have also embraced Mr. Hopkins's sentiments, and knew it not.—You have actually done so, towards the close of your letter.

Speaking of Mr. Edwards's piece on the nature of virtue, you observe, that his notion of virtue and natural conscience, &c. ‘are fundamental to the scheme of doctrines I oppose.’ They are so! And his notion of virtue is new and strange, and the scheme you have built upon it new—Both must stand or fall together. You ask, ‘Why did not Mr. Hart take this dissertation in hand, and censure and confute it? This would be—laying the ax to the root of the tree.’ It would.—I will also tell you why I did not. I had not then seen that dissertation, tho' I had heard of it. If I had seen that, and your sermons before I wrote, my dialogue would, in some respects, have been more perfect. I have since read that dissertation, and laid the ax to the root of the tree; and perhaps shall publish some remarks upon it, shewing that Mr. Edwards's notions of virtue, of the primary and secondary beauty of moral things, &c. are wrong, imaginary, and fatally destructive of the foundations of morality and true religion: If I do, I hope to have the piece out of the press by next commencement. Since you think this will be doing something, and that I ought to have done it before, I presume this intelligence will please you, and that you will subscribe for a dozen copies, at least.

You say, (p. 17.) ‘One design of president Edwards's piece on virtue, is to shew that men have naturally no degree of true virtue, but are wholly corrupt. And he has there considered the very things Mr. H. says to prove the contrary—and shews, that what Mr. H. calls virtue and an approbation of moral good, is nothing but natural conscience and natural taste, both which are consist­ent with the—most perfect corruption of heart, and opposition to all moral good.’ Here, sir, if I understand your meaning, you lead your reader to think I have said and endeavored to prove that men have naturally some degree of true virtue, and that their na­tural corruption is partial, as limited and restricted by some re­maining [Page 12] degree of true virtue in the heart naturally; and that I represent the approbation which natural conscience or the natural moral taste gives to virtue or moral good, simply considered as such, as a truly virtuous approbation, or an exercise of some degree of true virtue, natural to the heart of man. In all this you impose upon your reader, and abuse his confidence in you. I said nothing of all this, and what is more, I have not tho't it. You have given here as wrong an idea of what I said, and of what I believe, as could well be given. If you tho't yourself warranted to say this of me, by what I said in the second dialogue, you must have read it with very little attention or great partiality.—I would not be under­stood to intimate that I think Mr. Edwards's notions of the nature of true virtue are right. They are essentially wrong, and the view you give of my sentiments is essentially wrong. If you ever see my remarks on his piece, you will know more fully what my sen­timents are. In the mean time, I pray you not injuriously to mis­represent me any more, as you have done thro'out your animad­versions. Is it not too much like the conduct of the old heathen in dressing up the christians in bears skins, and setting their dogs upon them? If you write again in a controversial way, I wish you to honor yourself as a fair and equitable writer and reasoner. This is what we are commanded. And your spirit and manner ought to be very good, to make some amends for the badness of your principles.

I observe, sir, what you say, (p. 18.) relating to my mentioning a passage in Dr. Bellamy's sermon, at the college chappel, &c.— In answer to this, I will only remind you of what I told you; when at my house you professed your self offended with me for mention­ing of it I thus told you, ‘I had my information concerning the doctrine there delivered from four or five gentlemen who heard that discourse,’ (this was at different times, each one giving me his information in the absence of the others) ‘that after I had wrote what I at first tho't proper on that head, I shewed it to sundry of my informers, desiring them to observe whether my representation was just, (two of them were the Dr's particular friends) and reduced it to what I finally published, as what the most scrupulous said he well remembered the Dr. did say, if not in those very words, yet to the same purpose: I observed further, that a discourse, once delivered in so public a manner, becomes public property.’ All this seemed to calm your resentment: But an evil spirit seems now to trouble you.

I observe, Sir, you endeavor (p. 19 to 2 [...].) to persuade your readers I am inconsistent with myself in sundry important particu­lars, and really own the doctrines I condemn: I don't think it needful to answer you particularly as to this. The inconsistencies [Page 13] you complain of are of your own making. The appearance of contradictions is the result of your misconstructions, misrepresen­tations, and false colourings. Pray, sir, turn a serious thought on what you have wrote in the last paragraph of your 24th p. and first part of the 25th. You know, sir, that in dialogue writing, one of the speakers only personates the author, and is supposed to speak his sentiments, the others not, only so far as he approves or admits them; and that in my dialogue the clergyman personates the writer. In the passage you refer to, (in p. 67 of the dialogue) I made the gentleman say, ‘all reasonable and honest men, I think, can be at no loss to determine on which side the truth lies.’ — This I did (as supposing some persons, more zealous than charitable, would be ready to make such a rash conclusion) that I might cen­sure it as unjust, and inculcate a more charitable and generous sentiment; which I make the clergyman do immediately, in his reply. All this must be obvious to every intelligent and impartial reader. Yet you are pleased to represent this sentiment of the Gentleman, first, in a false and very aggravated light, and then to impute it to me, and represent me as thinking all the most noted Calvinist divines are unreasonable and dishonest men; and cry out, 'This a bold stroke indeed.' This of yours is indeed a bold stroke. —You next represent me as a little shocked at this severe censure, and attempting to correct and soften it; but to very little purpose, according to your representation. If I was your enemy (which I am not) I could not wish you to dishonor yourself more, than, I think you have done in this surprising paragraph, and indeed thro' this whole piece. In this paragraph your reasoning supposes that ‘the Westminster assembly, and many of the most noted divines in New-England, and elsewhere,’ agree with you and Dr. W. and that I in censuring your peculiar sentiments equally censured theirs. This is a favorite representation. I believe this will be tho't unjust by the judicious: and it ought to be so tho't by you, if you would be consistent with yourself; for you say, (p. 28) ‘I have some­time tho't the doctrines which have of late been called by many new divinity, are really a revival and improvement of sound Calvin­ism.’ 'Tis only so far as they are what you call an improvement that others call them new, and that I censured them as false. And thus far they are not patronised by the respectable body of Calvi­nist divines 'from the reformation down to this day.' How could they? The improvements you speak of are new. Mr. Edwards's posthumous piece, on virtue, you acknowlege is ‘the root of the tree;’ which you have cultivated and adorned with many of its branches.

You say, sir, ‘It is reported that a number of ministers in New-England, who were zealous promoters of the revival of religion [Page 14] (about 30 years ago) and did then abundantly preach up the doctrine of total depravity, do now profess their approbation of Mr. H's piece. If any such there are, it becomes them to know that they have indeed changed sides, and departed from the faith they once earnestly contended for.’ And you, sir, have rebuked them sharply that they may be sound in the faith. But I bespeak your pity and tenderness for them. Poor gentlemen, they have embraced Arminian errors, and are become opposers of revived re­ligion, 'and know it not!' and I believe never would have known it, if you had not revealed it to them. If they go no farther than to pity you, you ought to be thankful to them for their lenity.

You are pleased to say, my objections against the new scheme, are in substance the same that Arminians have always made against Calvinism. I believe, Sir, you are under some mistake in this.— But suppose it so, they may lie against your doctrines, and be unanswerable on your principles, tho' not so on Calvinistic princi­ples. Suppose a foreign body plays cannon against his Majesty's fort; may not the King's soldiers after this point the same cannon against a fort erected by the Pretender, and be blameless? Would you call them the King's enemies because they do so?

I pass over many other things in your animadversions, which deserve to be animadverted upon. Indeed you have said very little but what merits censure.

I have heard Dr. Whitaker is writing against the dialogue, you intimate as much; and suppose your animadversions are sent out as his forerunner. They are well adapted to prejudice people in favor of what he may have to offer. But I question whether the method you have taken is calculated to give them ears to hear with that impartiality which becomes christian men. Your forerunner, as we have seen, has made strait ways crooked, and smooth ways ruff. I hope the Dr. will have more wisdom than to walk in your prepared road.

I have two requests to make to you sir, if you will be so good as to hear them; first, that you will once more review your ani­madversions, with solemn seriousness, and blame yourself before God for whatever you have reason to think is displeasing to him in them, or in the spirit with which they are wrote. Indeed sir, you do not write with a good spirit. In your reply to Mr. Mills you treated that worthy father very ill, in an ungenerous and unwor­thy manner. This is the judgment of all I have heard speak of it, who have read it. And now, besides misrepresenting many things to your readers, you have manifestly endeavoured to injure me, and render me the object of unjust popular odium and con­tempt; and to this purpose have said many things, which, for your sake, I was sorry to see. So far as I am injured by you, I am [Page 15] ready to forgive you, whenever you are in a prepared disposition to ask and receive God's forgiveness; which, I wish we may both obtain for all our wrongnesses, and grace thoroughly to sweeten and christianize our spirits.

My second request to you sir, is, that you will calmly and im­partially review the new doctrines you have advanced, and no more perplex and corrupt the doctrines of truth, by mingling them with metaphysical notions, falsly so called. The observation of president Edwards, which you mention'd to me in conversation, is just, viz. ‘That no man is under greater temptation than an author who has unhappily advanced indefensible doctrines.’ This is eminently so, when he has expected to get himself a name thereby. It may be hard to overcome this temptation, but it must be done. We ought sir, to be so much above our selves as to be able to re-examine our own public doctrines with as great impartiality as those of any other man, and to retract and censure them, once seen to be erroneous, as freely as the errors of any other. What are we? what is our honour, as contrasted with the truth itself, and with the honor of the great teacher of truth? How much lighter than the smallest dust of the ballance? I am strongly convinced sir, I believe, on the foot of the clear [...] and fullest evidence, that your scheme of doctrine relating to the natu­ral enmity, regeneration, and their consequences, is false, and de­structive of the gospel of God; and am perswaded you are master of so much discerning and judgment, that if you can re-examine it with strict impartiality, free from prejudice, you will see it to be so, and repudiate it. I am not about to reason with you upon this subject; but suffer me to suggest one thing: Your scheme is, in many respects, inconsistent with itself, and with sundry gospel truths which you hold: and you know truth is self-consistent throughout. I will only mention one of your inconsisten­cies. You sir, and all the brotherhood, so far as I have seen, say the natural corruption, enmity, and impotence of the heart, is wholly of the moral kind, and that the change which is wrought in what you call regeneration, is a moral, not a physical change; and yet you say, this change is not, and cannot possibly be effected by a moral influence and power of the Spirit of God, with the gospel truth; that it is, and can be effected only by a physical or [...] ­culous operation of the Spirit, without giving light, or applying gospel truth. You must, Sir, make both physical, or both [...], or remain intangled in inconsistency: But the truth is not thus bound. To detect and renounce your own errors will be greater glory to you, than it would be to prostitute the whole christian world to the belief of them. I only add my friendly wish that you may attain this height of glory, and henceforth speak the pure, [Page 16] unadulterated truth, in love; and am, though treated in an injuri­ous, unfrindly and ungentlemanly manner,

P. S. Reading your Postscript bro't to mind this old proverb, You may know the bird that is hit, by her fluttering.—

Did you, sir, ever hear of an army's being drove out of the field by the enemy, before he had taken the field?