WHEN I heard you was writing in answer to me, in the heat of your spirit, and that your papers had passed thro' Mr. Hopkins's hands, I did not expect a calm, fair, equitable examination of things, and I do not find it. 'Tis most evident that you did not write under the influence of that wisdom which is without partiality, but hearkened, a great deal too much, to the counsels of the wisdom which is of men; which has caused you to wander far out of the way of truth, equity and honor, to my injury and your own hurt.

I shall not point out and reprove all your faults in what you have written against me: that would swell this letter into a large volume: but some things I must tell you. If thy brother trespass against thee, tell him his fault.—A few things only, I briefly mention in the first part, and hasten to your appendix.

You say (p. 19) ‘Does it not deserve a smile to see Mr. H. quoting President Edwards's answer to Taylor, in confutation of my opinion?—He is so fully of my sentiments on this head, that I am bold to say, Mr. H. never read him, or does not under­stand him, or else injured his conscience in quoting him.’ Neither of these is true, Doctor. I read that book many years since, and have now in my possession a manuscript, wrote A.D. 1762, in which I observe some of that great man's doctrinal inconsistencies, and shew the falshood and absurdity of his notion of personal identity, and of Adam and all his children being one complex moral person or moral whole. If you are disposed to publish it, it is at your service. It will enable you to judge whether I understand the book; and [Page 4] perhaps may give you a clearer understanding of it—As to inju­ring my conscience in quoting him, this is a wonderful thought, Doctor I quoted these words from you, ‘This contrariety to God is innate and interwoven with the very frame of our hearts.’ and then added, 'Is this consistent with Mr. Edwards's doctrine? He says, ‘There is not the least need of supposing any evil quality infused, implanted or wro [...]t into the nature of man, by any positive cause or influence whatever; or of supposing that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing properly positive, in order to account for a sinful corruption of nature.’ See the Dialogue, p 15. I did not add one word more. In what was my conscience injured in this? Was it in asking that wicked question? or in quoting the words? Are the words, or the doctrine they contain, wicked, and un­lawful to be transcribed? I believe, Doctor, all the fault lies in the direct opposition of Mr. E [...]s doctrine, contained in these words, to yours, and this, you know, is not my fault, but yours, or his.

Speaking of the perverse Jews, you say, ‘It was as difficult to persuade them that they hated God, and were the children of Satan, as it is to persuade Mr. H that carnal men naturally hate moral good, and perhaps for the same reason. When Christ told them they were the children of the devil, they in return, told him he had a devil; pretty much as Mr. H. has served me for saying, man is turned devil.’ (p 25). 'Ti [...] you, Sir, that intimate concerning me, that I have a devil; I bro [...]t no such 'railing ac­cusation' against you. I mention this as one of the things by which you dishonor yourself, both as a gentleman and a christian, and of which you ought seriously to repent.

You say, in your sermon (p 40.41, 2d edit.) ‘Sinners laugh at his (God's) counsels and despise all his reproof; and so they will do till the arm of God's power is revealed to make them willing [by creating them anew in Christ Jesus]’ I compared this with another passage in your sermon, viz ‘No moral argu­ments except the terrors of the Lord, are adapted to influence carnal sinners to attend to their salvation,’ and observed the inconsistence. You now endeavor to reconcile yourself with yourself thus, ‘Where is the inconsistency? In both I shew that no arguments of any hind are sufficient to renew and reconcile carnal sinners to God. Yet I say, the terrors of the Lord are adapted to influence them to seek deliverance from hell by working on their principle of self love—Is this hard to be un­derstood?’ [Page 5] No, Doctor, it is not. But it is hard to be under­stood how these terrors should thus work on this principle, so long as the sinner laughs at and despises them. You had better have said nothing. You must give up one of the propositions: they will always quarrel.

You say (p. 46 of your serm.) ‘A realizing view and percep­tion of the moral beauty and glory of God is that which is the motive that first prevails with the [renewed] sinner to return and be reconciled to him.’ In the note you say, ‘I ask Mr. H's pardon for leaving out the word [renewed] which I have now inserted.’ You, Sir, had more need to ask pardon for inserting it now; which, had you done so, I could not have granted, but upon the condition of your throwing it out again. The propo­sition, as it stood before was true, and as such I quoted it to your honor; but as it now stands, it is foolish and absurd, and a mon­ster which devours itself. The true and scriptural idea of a sin­ner renewed, is one morally changed, and conformed to God in the holiness of his heart or prevailing temper. And thus you sometimes describe this renewal; I don't mean exactly in these words, but to the same sense. And yet you here represent this renewal as affecting no such change. The renewed sinner, consi­dered simply as renewed, is not yet persuaded ‘to return and be reconciled to God.’ This is effected by a different, and after­work of the Spirit of God, giving the renewed sinner 'a realizing view,' and so the sinner is renewed, and not renewed at the same time: for such a renewal of the spirit of the mind as does not reconcile the man to God is nothing. Why, Doctor, do you so trifle with, and abuse scriptural terms & phrases? I don't mention this absurdity as peculiar to you, it is common to all who teach a physical regeneration, without any influence from light and truth. But will numbers keep such absurdities in countenance?—Doc­tor, your sermons need a third edition, with numerous additional corrections.

Now, Doctor, let us a little examine your Appendix. In do­ing which we shall both have need of patience; I in suffering your unjust censures, you in suffering my just vindication and apology.

I. The first thing I notice is your perverse misrepresentation of my doctrine relating to the moral sense or taste natural and essential to man as a moral agent, and to all moral agents, as such. You say 'Mr. Hart's—fundamental error, I take to be this, [Page 6] 'viz. that all beings endowed with natural conscience have ne­cessarily a taste for moral excellency, i. e. approve and LOVE that which appears to the understanding or conscience to be morally good, and HATE what appears morally evil.' (p. 63, 64.) Here, Doctor, you represent that approbation which reason and conscience, or the moral sense gives to actions and characters morally good, when presented to the mind in a true light (which I spake of as natural and essential to moral agents, as such) as the same with the love of the heart, or their being chosen and embraced by the will in prefe­rence to all that stands in competition with them.—I did not do so, but kept these clearly distinguished. You might have per­ceived it if your mind had not been biased by evil passions, unless your understanding is more defective than I have thought it.— This, Sir, is your fundamental error, or mistake and blunder, and runs thro' all you have said upon this subject, to my injury, and to your own dishonor.

Quoting a passage from my dialogue (p. 52) which concludes thus, 'On this,' i. e. on the moral faculty of discerning between moral good and evil, &c. ‘is founded the principle and power of natural conscience,’ you paraphrase or expound the words thus, ‘On this ready perception of the beauty of morally good, and hatefulness of morally evil objects, i. e. on a LOVE for holi­ness and HATRED of sin, is founded the principle and power of natural conscience;’ by which you certainly mean a gracious and holy love to spiritual things, and holy hatred of their contraries. (p. 65.) Doctor, if you thus essentially misrepresented the ob­vious sense of my words, thro' weakness, I pity you; if you did it wilfully, which you have given great reason to suspect, the heavens frown upon you.

You go on in your way, and draw many dreadful consequences from your fundamental blunder, which you charge upon me, and injuriously lay them at my door; and by partial quotations, and perverse constructions endeavor to fasten them on me: see your two first sections.—You say in particular, ‘Mr. H. be­lieves that unrenewed men see and LOVE virtue in its own light,’ (p. 70.) ‘He largely insists that moral beings necessarily LOVE God and objects morally good or holy as soon as they see them, and takes it for granted, again and again, that they can see them in a true light, as amiable and excellent, worthy of esteem and honor, and are affected accordingly; that they cannot hate God, but when they view him as a morally evil and contemptible being.’ [Page 7] (p. 163.) This, Doctor, is your short summary of what you have been laboring to persuade your readers I believe and teach, at the expence of almost an hundred pages, by a variety of partial quotations, arbitrary and artful misrepresentations, and foolish and perverse reasonings. But after all, you are only beering false witness against your neighbour, as I shall shew you presently. But first, let us see what you tell your readers I believe, relating to the nature of the enmity of vicious beings to God.

II. I will represent the matter in your own words. You say, ‘He (Mr. H.) shews his opinion to be this, that all men really love God's true character, and never hate him but when he is viewed by them in false and odious colours;—and therefore that their hearts are right, holy and good,’ (p. 74.) ‘Are there not many’ (beings) ‘who are allowed by all, except Mr. H. to be totally destitute of true virtue or love to God, even all the devils? Mr. H. indeed supposes that they do not, cannot hate God, considered in himself, but only a false character of him, which is not God.—But whatever high opinion Mr. H. may have of the piety of devils,—I shall take it for granted that devils are very wicked beings,’ (p. 77.) They are indeed so, Doctor; they abode not in the truth, and they falsely accuse those that do. God forbid that we should be like them.—You say you 'could fill whole pages to shew that Mr. Hart considers this en­mity 'to God as a very trifling evil, (93) No, Doctor, you can't produce one passage that intimates any such thing; but might have quoted many which shew the contrary.

Please to turn your eye on your 90, 91, 92 and 93 pag.— You will there see such an instance of unjust and infamous misre­presentation, and ill bred perverseness as is scarcely to be equal­led by the whole society of Jesuits. Doctor, is not this para­graph like the young prophet's ax? I have good reason to think it is, and several others.

Doctor, you represent this as my doctrine, ‘It is not the true, but a false God, a morally evil or sinful being, that they’ (wicked men) ‘always, universally hate, and that because he appears to them wicked, and as acting contrary to the moral law, which they naturally approve. And therefore it is impossible for them to hate the true God.—By Mr. H's own account, there is no need that the spirit of enmity should be mortified, and a better and holy temper introduced into the heart’ (of the carnal men) ‘because the temper is already holy, and needs nothing to remove [Page 8] its enmity to God, but just speculative notions of his character. This is Mr. H's notion of enmity to God, in a short view.’ (p. 97.98) I could quote much more to this purpose, but these are sufficient to give the reader an idea of the doctrine you charge, and endeavor to fasten upon me.

III. Let us now search the Dialogue that we may see whether these things are so, or are only false and railing accusations which you have bro't against your brother.—Doctor, I desire you will attend with a good and honest heart, willing to see things as they really are.—I said, ‘There is in man a natural faculty whereby he is rendered capable of discerning and distinguishing between moral good and evil—and readily perceives the one to be right, amiable, and worthy of esteem and honor; the other wrong, hate­ful, and blame-worthy—as soon as these objects are seen by the mind in their true light, or as being what they really are, without any further reasoning about them,’ (D p 52)— This, Doctor, you have represented as implying a holy love to the one, and hatred to the other: but suffer me to ask you a few questions. What are characters and actions morally good in themselves? Are they not really right, amiable, worthy of esteem and honor? Are not their contraries really wrong, hateful, blame-worthy? If the mind sees these objects as 'being what they are,' does she not perceive them to be so, i. e. to be what she sees them to be? And if the mind perceives the morally good to be right, &c. and the morally evil to be wrong, &c. does she not, in this view of them, in her judgment and conscience, approve the one as right, &c. and because it is so, and disapprove the other as wrong, &c. and because it is so? Does not the natural sense pronounce this right judgment concerning them? Can the mind, at the same time, approve a morally good action or cha­racter as being right and because it is right, and disapprove it be­cause it is right, or as being wrong? Or can she approve that as right, which at the same time she disapproves as wrong? Or can she both approve and disapprove it because she sees it to be wrong and blame-worthy?—If the heart hates and rejects that which the understanding and conscience see and approve as right and worthy of esteem, and loves and chuses that which these see to be wrong, blame-worthy, and proper objects of moral ha­tred, and disapprove as such; (which is often the case) does the heart thus counteract the conscience and moral sense, from the same views of the objects, which determine the judgment of [Page 9] the conscience? Is it not because the heart is interested and rendered partial and perverse by her attachment to particular lusts, the indulgence whereof is inconsistent with moral truth and right, and for the sake of which, as best beloved, she hates and rejects the truth and right, embraces the evil and wrong? The mind approves the moral truth, viewing it as it is in itself, the heart rejects and hates it, relatively considered, or as opposing her lusts, from interested views. When this is the case, is not the man condemned of himself, in that which he allows in heart and practice? Does he not act inconsistently with himself, as well as with the rule of right, and do violence to the moral con­stitution of his nature? When Judas betrayed his Master, did he not act from the heart, under the influence of covetousness and foolish resentment, in opposition to his judgment or conscience? And when he afterwards said, ‘I have sinned in that I have be­trayed innocent blood,’ did he not speak the language of the moral sense? Do you think, Doctor, that he now discovered any thing of a spiritual taste or holy temper of heart? Peter was an accurate divine. He says, ‘Balaam loved the wages of unrigh­teousness’ ^* For the sake of these he forsook the right way, knowing of it such, and went astray in the ways of unrighteous­ness. And the apostle Jude speaking of some christian apostates, says, ‘They have ran greedily after the error of Balaam for re­ward.’ ^‡ This Balaam forsook the right way, and went astray in the way of error and unrighteousness, with his eyes open. Was it because the way of error and unrighteousness appeared to him a more excellent, or amiable and pleasant way, in itself, simply con­sidered as such, than the contrary way? Was it because he hated right and loved wrong for its own sake? Your doctrine says it was: but you see Peter and Jude have decided the case against you. This wicked man loved the wages of unrighteousness, and ran in that way as greedy of the reward of iniquity. Was not his hatred of the right way and love of the wrong, an interested and partial af­fection, a secondary passion, a consequence and result of his love and greedy desire of the reward?

Doctor, think enough to answer all these questions right; and then read over the second part of my dialogue again, with perfect calmness, not in the spirit of a perverse disputer of this world, interested in misrepresenting its sense, but as an impartial, upright judge, as under his eye who sees all the artful windings of the [Page 10] crooked serpent, and approves the way of the upright; and I trust the mist will vanish from before your eyes, and that you will see clearly that you have essentially misrepresented my doctrine, and greatly wronged your brother, and, as you say, ‘havi [...] [...] arguing to no purpose, at least have not confuted M [...] but only a doctrine I have palmed on him, and which he has not taught.’ (p. 157) This, Sir, is the very truth. I must help you a little more, that you may see it clearly.

In my account of the moral sense natural and essential to man as a moral agent, you think you find ‘a good definition of a spi­ritual taste,’ or holy love to spiritual good: But in this you [...]r. That approbation which reason and the moral sense give to things morally good, which I spake of, as quoted above, is not the same thing with a supreme love and preferring choice of them by the heart; which is essential to true virtue. The first may exist while the other does not; which is often the case with men. You say to this purpose, that this approving perception of the mind implies true love of the heart, or at least necessarily draws it. But you are mistaken in this. The approbation of conscience or of the moral sense, and the ruling affection and choice of the heart, are frequently as far asunder, in sinful beings, as the city of God and the kingdom of Satan.— You also say to this purpose, that no natural man can see things morally good in a true light, or perceive their moral amlableness and excellence; and so says the writer of the notes in your appendix. I will allow you two things, Doctor; first, that men must have these things presented to their view by God's teaching, before they can perceive their moral excellence. Secondly, that natural men can't see them in so clear and realizing a light as holy men [...]o, and yet re­main carnal: but they may have their understanding so far en­lightned, as to see them to be right, amiable in themselves, and worthy of esteem and honor, and approve them as such, and yet their heart be pr [...]ingaged, and continue attached to other objects less worthy, [...]nd [...]istent with these. This is enough to jus­tify all I have said upon this subject in the dialogue.

Mr Edwards admits the distinction between the taste and ap­probation of moral good or true virtue, by the conscience or mo­ral sense, and that by a spiritual sense. He freely owne that the mind of the unrenewed man, if duly inlightened, may see, and by the moral sense approve a real beauty, excellence and amiableness in true virtue. This indeed he calls a secondary beauty, but says [Page 11] it belongs to moral things. This is not the less a real and true moral beauty because he calls it a secondary beauty. He was a great man, but not so great as to alter the nature of things by a dash of his pen; nor so great as to be exempted [...]om the uni­versal infirmity. He could err as well as you and I. If you should ever see my remarks on his piece upon true virtue, you will meet with some thoughts, which, perhaps, may do you no hurt.

But I here present you with a short passage or two from that piece. Mr. Edwards says, ‘Natural conscience, if well informed will approve of true virtue, and disapprove the want of it and opposition to it — Yea if mens consciences were [...]ully enlighten­en—they would approve nothing but true virtue,^* There is a moral taste, or sense of moral good and evil, natural to all which does not properly arise out of self-love.^† This moral sense, If the understanding be well informed—approves the very same things, which a spiritual and divine sense approves, and those things only; tho' not on the same grounds, nor with the same kind of approbation.’ ^‡

In the dialogue, p. 61, 62, you may find these words, viz. ‘I observed above, that the enmity of sinful souls against God's true character is directed against it, only relatively considered, and is a secondary passion, which arises in the heart in consequence of men's indulgence of particular lusts, which first lead them into a practical opposition to the law and righteous will of God▪ When the light of truth manifests their deeds to be evil and reproves them, and kindly calls them back into the right way, if they submit to the reproof, and obey the merciful call, their opposition to God ceases, no higher enmity can rise in their hearts; their enmity is turned against their own lusts: but if they refuse to receive reproof, and persist in their sins against light, the light becomes offensive, and they hate it as reproving them. The scorner hateth him that reproveth him.’

After having offered some things in confirmation of this ac­count of the nature and spring of this wicked enmity. I say (p. 64) ‘This doctrine concerning the enmity of carnal men against God, is further confirm'd by this observation, which holds universally true in fact, viz. That men who hate God, his ways, and righteous servants, always misrepresent their characters to themselves, paint them in false and odious colours, and place them in such a wrong view as to make them appear either contemptible or morally evil: This is the method they always take to justify to [Page 12] THEMSELVES, as well as to others their enmity to them: which they would not do if moral rectitude wisdom, righteousness and goodness, were, in themselves objects of their natural hatred; but their hatred would point itself directly against them, as being what they really are; as in the case of natural aversions to some particular kinds of food. This hatred of wicked men against God is then an inte­rested and partial affection, taken up in aid and support of some carnal lusts and interests is they are devoted to.’ — Doctor, the sense of this paragraph is fixed and very obvious. 'Tis manifest as the light, that I speak of wicked men's misrepresenting God's character, &c. to themselves as the method they take to justify to themselves their partial, unjust enmity to them. They do this to guard their wicked hearts, as far as they can, against the con­de [...]mina reproaches of their reasonable minds, and the severe reproofs of their conscience or moral sense; which, when allowed to spe [...]ts own sense of things freely, under the influence of light is the understanding, justifies God and his ways, and freely co [...]m [...]s this unnatural enmity. This is agreeable to what I say, dialogue, p 66 ‘N [...] ever did speak evil of God's ways, viewing them as they [...] y [...]a [...], as equitable and good; but as placing th [...] a wrong [...]ight to themselves When they are obliged to see them as they truly are they are reduced to silence, and can object nothing to them: but justify and approve them as RIGHT, and condemn themselves.’ —Poor creatures, they can enjoy no self approbation and quiet but under the gloomy shade of per­verse misrepresentation. Hence it is that men obstinately bent upon sin, close their own eyes stop their ears make their hearts gross, lest they should see hear and vnderstand; when they do if they do not return, they are, like the discovered thief, in the terrors of the shadow of death.

Let us next observe, Doctor, how you have forced these passa­ges into your service; for indeed you have constrained them to serve in a state of cruel bondage, contrary to their nature, and wholly against their will. You often quote part of both of them, as in the pages referred to in the margin, ^* but have never once, as I have observed, quoted any part of what I have now put in Italics, nor given your readers the least hint of any such clauses, which fix the sense of the whole, (tho' you must have observed them yourself) but keep them out of sight: you could not per­vert them. I desire you, and all who read this, will turn your eyes back on these extracts, and observe the parts printed in Ita­lics, and then compare them with your quotations refer'd to be­low, [Page 13] and observe the use you make of what you venture to show your readers—it may give an edifying blush — The things you have quoted, you so artfully weave in with your own misre­presentations as to make them look a little favorable to them, to a careless reader. But whoever will give himself the trouble to compare as I have requested, will very easily discover the imposi­tion that is practised upon him. The sense you constantly put upon these passages is this. That men and all moral beings, have naturally a holy love to Gods true character, and never do or can hate him, but as he is viewed by the mind in a false and odi­ous character, either as a morally evil or contemptible being. It would be an affront to the reader's understanding to say any thing more to convince him that the passages given above fully condemn you; they speak for themselves. Doctor, in this shame­ful misrepresentation of my doctrine, you have greatly injured me, abused and misled your readers, and dishonored yourself.

Let us examine another passage which you have made great use of, and observe how you have perverted and abused it. After I had finished what I designed upon the doctrine of the enmity of wicked men against God, in opposition [...] you wrong notions of it, I just mentioned another kind of enmity, in properly called en­mity to God's character or real works, which is sometimes found in good men, who by the grace of God, are cured of that kind of enmity which rises out of the perverseness of a wicked heart, These were my words. ‘Since we are upon the melancholy subject of the enmity of poor sinners against God, I will just mention one thing more.’

‘Many very honest and good people have often complained of the workings of a secret enmity and hard thoughts of God, and quarrellings against him; which does n [...] like that we have been discoursing upon, arise out of the WICKEDNESS of the heart, but is wholly occasioned by misrepresentations of the character and ways of God to the mind, and false and wrong views of him, which have unhappily gotten possession of the mind, and are supposed thro' ignorance and wrong instruction, to be the true and genuine views of his character and works. In the light wherein they view them they appear morally evil, wrong, and objects of just hatred. The enmity which the [...]ind conceives against them, viewed in this wrong light, is, in a proper sense, a natural enmity, i e it arises [...] he moral frame of the mind, and the innate sense of the hatefulness of actions and characters morally evil and wrong: and if the heart is gracious this sense is greatly heightened. This kind of enmity is, in no true con­struction, [Page 14] a hatred of God's true character, which may he hear­tily approv'd and lov'd at the same time; but only of a really bad character, falsely ascribed to him, merely thro' ignorance, mistake and misinformation. This may be illustrated by th [...] case of a child educated abroad, who has lust [...]'d into his mind perhaps by the foolish tattle of his [...]urse or school-master, very wrong and injurious notions of his father's character [...]en pe [...] and designs towards him; representing him as very [...] [...]ona [...] ­ble, arbitrary and cruel, or [...]a [...]d hypocritical towards him [...] whereas in truth he is quite the reverse This wrong view raises in the child disa [...]tion, hard and blaming thoughts▪ His father, who knows the case, p [...]ties him, considering it [...]igno­rance and error, not malice against his [...]. The true and effectual cure of this kind o [...] [...]n [...]i [...], is accomplished by correcting these unhappy [...]apprehensions and giving the [...]i [...] a just view of the true character of God, and setting his action [...] and dispensations in that true [...]ight wherein he himself has pla­ced them.’ (D p. 68.69)

Doctor, you secquently quote passages from this paragraph, and misrepresent their sense in a most pe [...] manner You n [...] where give your renders the least him that I am here speaking of a case of an entirely different nature from that of the vicious en­mity of the ungodly, which [...]ses out of the wickedness of the heart, and which I have been discoursing of before, tho' you could not but know that I was; but you constantly represent me to your readers as speaking of the vicious enmity, and apply what I say upon this improper enmity, to that of the wicked as my ac­count of the nature and source of their enmity against God, his truth and ways. The manner of my introducing this paragraph, and these words, referring to that kind of enmity I was here des­cribing, viz which does not like that we have been discoursing upon, arise o [...]t of the wickedness of the heart, fix the scufe and application of the whole, and fully evidence your injustice and extreme unfair­ness in your application of this to the enmity of the wicked, in the manner you do.—Such as are curious to see your quotations from this paragraph, and the perverse abuse of them, may consult the pages referred to in the margin.—You quote me as saying, 'many 'very honest and good sort of people. These words, sort of, you have added to the text, and give as many words. I should not have mentioned so small a thing, if you had not repeated them afterwards two or three times, and played upon them with a view to render me contemptible in your readers eye.

[Page 15]In general, Doctor, you have improved the quotations you make from the paragraph given above, to persuade your readers that I admit no other kind or worse sort of enmity against God, in the wickedest men and even in devils themselves, than that improper enmity there described; and that I hold that wicked men and devils have at bottom, a temper of heart disposed to love God, and only want to have their ignorance removed, and their wrong speculative notions concerning him rectified, in order to their love shewing itself in actual exercise.—You say in particular. ‘It appears, according to Mr. H. that the only difference between the hatred of God which is in the righteous and wicked, lies in this, viz. the wicked misrepresent God's character to themselves, and so are the cause of the misrepresentation (tho' on his princi­ples, they do it without any hatred of God) while the righteous, or very good [sort of] people’ (quoted again as my words, with a contemptuous sneer—the contempt be to whom it belongs) ‘have him misrepresented to them, by wrong instructions, and so are not the active cause of affixing this false character to God; but yet after the false representation is made, they both have the same enmity to it, only the gracious heart will hate it in a higher degree And you say, 'this (kind of enmity) 'is ALL and the WORST that can be found in any man,’ (p 73.) i. e. accor­ding to my doctrine.—Can any thing be said more foolish, false, perversely injurious? If your reader makes his judgment of my doctrines from your account of them, he will be totally deceived. ‘Surely your turning things upside down shall be esteemed as the Potter's clay.’

Two or three passages more, I take a little notice of, and then close this scene.

You tells us (p. 98) Mr. H. says, ‘God considered simply i [...] himself cannot be hated; yet relatively considered he possibly may;’ and say, ‘Mr. H puts the change on his readers by the words, relatively considered. Just as tho' to consider God as related to us, as our Creator and Lord, were different from con­sidering him as he is in himself.’ (Why do you drop the word simply? Are you not putting the change upon your readers?) [...]s not God in himself our sovereign creator and governor?' If you had dropped the word in, as well as, simply considered, I should have answered, Yes. I will state the question as you should have done, if you meant to say any thing to the purpose, and do you answer it. Is not God considered simply in himself, our creator and governor? Thus [...] he is viewed only in respect to his essential character, to his nature, not in his words [...]nt [Page 16] himself, and his consequent relations to the works of his hands simply considered he is regarded only as being what he is in himself what he was before he began creation. Was God our creator &c before we were created? Is it essential to his nature to create us? If so, God had not in himself all that is essential to hi [...] nature till you and I came into existence.—You put more puzzling questions. ‘Does it not essentially belong to him to create and govern his creatures?’ I suspect you had no ideas here. If you mean that the works and relations of God as creator and gover­nor, belong to the divine essence, you have your answer above If you mean that God having created, tis essential to his relativ [...] character of creator that he did create the creatures he has crea­ted, and that it belongs to him, as their maker, to care for, an [...] govern them; it is doubtless so. If you don't mean one of these you mean nothing. If you mean either, or both, your question is nothing to the purpose — You add, ‘Is it not essential t [...] the divine nature to oppose our particular lusts and private in­terests, which are contrary to his nature? Is not God essentially as he is in himself, necessarily opposite to every sin?’ His ho [...] nature is essentially opposed to all moral evil or unrighteousnes [...] You say, ‘If it is, then to consider him as opposing some particul [...] lusts of ours, or some of our private interests, is to consider him [...] he is in himself.’ If what you mean by this, is, that this is [...] consider him as acting in character, or in a manner which is tru [...] agreeable to his holy nature; I agree with you. But what ha [...] you gained? What have you proved by this? Just nothing [...] all. Thus to consider God, is not to consider him ‘simply himself,’ but relatively, as opposing some of our lusts, or priva [...] interests; i. e. as opposing us in our evil ways, menacing or i [...] flicting punishment therefor This, Doctor, is just that relativ [...] interesting view of God, of his moral perfections in act and exe [...] cise, in relation to the sinner, in which view of him. I said [...] possibly may be hated, and in fact is, and necessarily so, unl [...] the sinner turns at his reproof Doctor, I wonder you did not [...] this.—We are now prepared for your next question, v [...] ‘Does not Mr. H then make a distinction where there is no difference?’ No, Doctor, I do not. Don't you see the diffe­rence? When you consider God's moral characters of truth equity, goodness, simply as such, or in an abstracted view, without any regard to their aspect upon you, your reason, your nat [...] ral moral sense, will pronounce them right, and approve them [...] worthy of esteem and honor: In this simple uninterested view them, you can't hate them: but if you should come to see th [...] [Page 17] God, in the exercise of these divine virtues, frowns upon you for your great unfairness and injustice in perverting my doctrine in the manner you have done, and your manifold abuses of me in your piece, essentially contrary to the spirit of goodness and justice, you would certainly, necessarily, be displeased, either with him or yourself; if with God for opposing you, your heart would gender hatred Your wrong doings are, even now, ‘practical opposition, or enmity if you please, against his h [...], law and will.’ When you see this. I hope your displeasure will turn into the right channel, and that the divine frown will then give place to the gracious smile.

Notwithstanding all the noise you make about my distinguish­ing between a simple and relative view of God's character, &c. you sometimes go into it yourself: the distinction is so natural you fall into it, even while you are cen [...]aring it in me. I give you one instance. You tell us (p 100) ‘Mr. H. thinks he has fully proved that the worst of men love the truth considered in itself, because the pharisees condemned the conduct of the hus­bandmen who slew their lord's servants and son, till they saw their own face in the glass.’ No, Doctor, I did not say, or un­dertake to prove, that they love truth or righteousness, as you un­derstand love to imply virtuous love. I said, and bro [...]t this exam­ple to prove that sinners, by the moral faculty, may see, and seeing do approve righteousness and moral good, as a right thing, amiable in itself, and worthy of esteem and honor; and that they hate it only relatively considered, and from interested views: and it does fully prove this. And you, in attempting to invalidate this evi­dence, confirm it, and even make it prove more than I desire it should. Your words are these, ‘Let us see what his witness proves. Why, it very plainly proves, (1) That the worst of men have a conscience capable of perceiving the truth. (2) That when they see themselves concerned in it, they love or HATE it, according as it agrees or disagrees with what is, in their view, their own interest and will treat it accordingly. (3) Therefore that mere selfishness will lead the worst of men to love or hate the same truth, as it appears to favor or oppose them.’ —Don't you see, Doctor, that you have here conceded all that I brought this example to prove; that the hatred of vicious beings against moral truth is an interested partial thing, opposed to their moral sense of what this truth deserves? How glorious is your opposition to me, for saying the same thing that you do! But, Doctor, you err a little, even here. I no where called this interested regard to moral truth and righteousness, love to them. It is unworthy [Page 18] the name; for it never ingages the hearts of the wicked in th [...] service: but their hatred to these, tho' it takes its rise from interested views and vicious passions, as you plainly confess, yet [...] becomes, in the impenitent and obstinate, a fixed and governing passion, and a source of infinite wickedness, mischief and misery. Besides, you had no warrant from this example of the malicious pharisees, to say any thing about this false love to moral truth. For the righteous judgment, upon the parabolical story, which the Lord drew them in to give, did not spring from, was not dic­tated by self love, or any regard to private interest: their hasty reversal of this judgment only, proceeded from thence. They did not apprehend themselves at all interested or concern'd in the case till the Lord applied their judgment. This judgment was dictated by that moral discernment and moral sense which is es­sential to all moral beings and which no degree of wickedness can destroy. The judgment of this sense is impartial and disinte­rested. When the light flows in upon it, and it is allowed to speak its own sense freely, it judges impartially, in every soul, of his own actions, as of other men's, without fear or favor: it only regards the right of the case. Hence the endeavors of wicked minds to blind and deceive themselves: hence their hatred and dread of the light.—I said, ‘Enmity to God is a secondary pas­sion.’ In the note, p. 102, you say, ‘This he explains thus: A consequence and result of wrong affections indulged in opposition to the law and will of God. But are not wrong affections, especially when indulged,’ —thus, ‘themselves enmity to God, in the scripture sense? Mr. H. in the next breath answers, YES; for any particular wrong affection—thus indulg'd is’ (practical opposi­tion or) 'enmity to the law of God.' You suppressed the words I now put in a parenthesis, I suppose, that you might represent me as inconsistent with myself; for you immediately add, ‘How the [...] is enmity a consequence and result of these wrong affections indulged?’ I told you how, in the next words following those you last quo­ted, viz. 'These' (wrong affections, which indulged, I said are practical opposition or enmity to the law of God) ‘These, per­sisted in against light, will draw after them a higher and more ma­lignant kind of enmity against God, as standing in the way of such indulged lusts.’ D. p. 60. I also said, p. 61, ‘Particular lusts—first lead men into a practical opposition to the law and righteous will of God. When the light of truth manifests their deeds to be evil, reproves—and calls them back—if they submit to the reproof, and obey the merciful call, their opposition fo [...] God ceases, no higher enmity can rise in their hearts. But if [Page 19] they refuse to receive reproof, and persist in their sins against light, the light becomes offensive, and they hate it as reproving them: The scorner hateth him that reproveth him.’

Doctor, you certainly saw these passages; but it was not for your purpose to shew them to your reader: if would have ruined your design.—In p. 103, you ask this question, ‘Are not wrong affections and carnal lusts something like enmity to God?’ and seem to think this a confounding stroke. Do you mean such affections and lusts, considered as indulged by the man, in opposi­tion to God's will? If so, I had told you before, that they are 'practical enmity to God's law. But if you mean here to con­sider them as not indulged, but restrained and over ruled by the mind, as I suspect you do; I desire you to answer me one ques­tion, which may help you to answer yours right. You think your self some way injured by your brother: resentment rises, a moti­on tending to revenge; the devil whispers such a tho't into your [...]ear: the tendency of this tho't and motion is to enmity: you instantly perceive its evil nature; you don't indulge it at all, but [...]mmediately resist, reject and suppress it with displeasure in the [...]ear of God. Do you in this 'look something like' one who has a heart of 'enmity to God,' or of dutiful conformity to him? ^*

[Page 20]Whatever was the cause, the fact is certain and very evident; you have essentially altered and misrepresented the doctrines taught in the dialogue, relating to the moral sense, and the nature and source of the enmity of the wicked against God ^† I have shewed this to you, in regard to your good, as well as to my own vindi­cation [Page 21] from the scandalous heresies you have charged me with, as you desired your reader to do, if he found this the case, that you might have the honor of retracting your error, (p. 107.) And now, Doctor, I expect you will do yourself the honor, and me the justice publicly to retract these false and injurious charges. If you do so, I will forgive you this wrong, and desire the churches to whom you dedicated your false accusations will do so too.— But I have other matters to settle with you, Doctor.

IV. I shall next attend to what you say upon that paragraph, wherein I mention the silencing the blasphemy of reprobate souls, by the force of truth. These are my words, viz. ‘Any particular sinful affection indulged in opposition to the will of God, is practical opposition or enmity to the law of God. These per­sisted in against light, will draw after them a higher and more malignant kind of enmity against God, as standing in the way of such indulged lusts And in this case, if the sense of God's righteousness in opposing and condemning the sinner in his evil ways is weak, and the sense of his own faultiness low and dull, this enmity may flame out dreadfully, and work up to blasphemy and cursing. This is the present state of devils, and in a sad degree the case of some men. But it is a great mis­take to suppose and teach that things will remain in this horrid confusion in wicked minds, forever, as too many do.—When God comes near to judgment he will reveal his righteousness from heaven, and impress upon all wicked souls, both of men and devils, such a clear, convincing, strong sense of the equity, fairness, and real kindness of his dispensations towards them in their former state of trial, of the heinousness of their offences, and of the justice and moral necessity of his present sentence of condemnation (which impression will never be suffered to wear off, any more) as will so far overbalance their natural self love, as to oblige them to justify God's character, conduct and judg­ment, in word and mind; and forever silence all murmurings, in­jurious reflections and hard speeches against him, and all blasphemy and cursings of their maker; their rage will turn inward against themselves, as the flame of a reverberating furnace falls with all its force upon the melting metal.’ (D. p. 60, 61.) You tell us, Doctor, that the thoughts in this long passage appear to you quite new, (p. 81) and you appear quite frighted, and see as many spectres rising up before you, as a timorous girl ever does in the dark; and you endeavor to alarm your readers by your pokerish descriptions of the creatures of your imagination; such as these, ‘That the damned at the day of judgment will love God's true [Page 22] character—that they will necessarily love, and cannot hate him— that the minds of the damned shall be calmed, and suited to their state—that there will be a happy ae [...]a for devils and repro­bate souls,’ &c. (p. 81, 82, 83.)

But let us try, Doctor, if we can't lay these evil spirits, which so haunt and terrify you.—The tho' is which you own to be quite new to you, are not so to all the world. Mr. Edwards expresses himself much to the same purpose— He says, ‘Christians have the greatest reason to believe, from the scriptures, that in the future day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, when sinners shall be called to answer before their judge, and all their wickedness, in all its aggravations clearly manifested in the perfect light of that day, and God will reprove them, and set their sins in order before them, their consciences will be greatly awakened and convinced, their mouths will be STOPPED—their consciences will approve the dreadful sentence of their judge; and seeing that they have deserved so great a punishment, will join with the judge in condemning them’ —He adds, ‘Their wicked­nes will then be bro't to perfection.’ ^* Which is true. I did not imagine any one would have understood me as intimating that they will then be converted to the holy love of God. I only said what is implied in Mr. Edwards's words, and that their rage and reproaches will then turn against themselves: which is the natural result of a full conviction that God is perfectly good and perfectly just, and they themselves the authors of their own ruin, in a state of final condemnation and despair.

The truths, Doctor, which are impressed upon the minds of the condemned, at the time of Judgment, are not fitted in their nature as they respect them, to quicken and sanctify their hearts, but to kill them; to justify God in his ways and judgment upon them, and to extort from them a permanent justification of him, a true confession before him, of his faithfulness and equity, of their evil desert, and a condemnation of themselves, all which necessa­rily turn their wrath and their reproaches against themselves; which instead of lessening, Increases their torment —This conviction is not willingly admitted, but forced upon them, by the force of the two edged sword which proceeds out of his mouth. If they could, they would throw it off, and return to the mise­rable expedient of misrepresenting to themselves, and reviling God's ways and judgments as unequal, as some poor relief from the tor­ment of the [...] own self condemning reflections. But it is now impossible. This conviction of the truth, respecting them, is fix­ed, and riveted in their souls forever.

[Page 23]Self-love, Doctor, in wicked and rejected souls, still works as a desire of self esteem, and of esteem from others, as a desire of life and happiness. And as the truth of their case obstructs the way of these motions, this self love springs rancorous hatred of this truth; and, as its only remaining resource, falls to misrepresent­ing and blaspheming the truth and the God of truth, laying the blame of its disappointment on God, or any where, rather than on self. But the truth, as impress'd by God on the mind, is of power sufficient to bear down this spring of blasphemy, and carry away all resistance before it, and will do this, when God comes near to judgment. This spirit, thus shut up from this opening, will necessarily fall upon the sinner himself with the whole force of its disappointed passions, as the true cause of his own undoing; and his remaining and eternal quarrel will be against himself, and the wicked helpers of his ruin. Self hatred, and killing sorrow, and fruitless repentance, lamentation and woe, will be his ever­lasting portion; which our Lord describes by weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. How great this misery!^*—In this sense Doctor, not in that you suggest, ‘the minds of the condemned will be suited to their state.’ The more suited the more misera­ble.

God will get the victory at last, when he comes with ‘ten thousands of his saints to—convince all that are ungodly—of all their ungodly deeds, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’ ^§ Then every mouth shall be stopped, and every tongue confess to God: And the wicked, who, now while God is departed, and hideth himself from them, set the [...] mouth against the heavens, ^† shall make their own tongue to fall up [...] themselves ^‡—But as you, Doctor, and too many others, repre­sent the case, the victory of God over his incorrigible enemies, never will be compleat: the victory of authority and power over their persons is indeed so. in subjecting them to a state of just punishment; but the victory of truth over their minds never is so Don't misapprehend me, Sir, I don't mean the saving truth, but the condemning, silencing, killing truth, which concerns them at the time of judgment. If they stand before their judge, and go [Page 24] away from the judgment feat, blaspheming and cursing their ma­ker and their judge, 'tis evident the condemning truth has not gained its rightful dominion over their minds: but if this killing sword sticks fast in their souls, and compels them to think and speak now and always, the things that are just and true concerning God and themselves, the victory of God is compleat, and their misery is compleat; and God is glorified to the utmost, in this dreadful catastrophe of wickedness.—This is undoubtedly the truth. By a contrary manner of representing the matter, God is really dishonored, tho' without design. If these tho'ts seem strange and wrong, it is from want of close and just reflection on the subject, on the holy scriptures relating to this subject, and on moral nature.

I just mention two of your observations on the passage above transcribed. First, you say, ‘The damned, if we may believe Mr. H. will not be in so horrid confusion always as they now are No! the happy time is coming when their confusion shall not be so horrible and dreadful; but if their minds shall be calmed, and every murmur silenced, their minds shall be suited to their state—Happy aera!’ (p. 81.) Doctor, you can't un­derstand any thing that I say. The horrid confusion which I said should not last forever, respects only the blasphemous rage against God. I there used the word confusion in the same sense that God uses it in the law, where speaking of some unnatural, monstrous sins, he says, they are 'confusion,' i. e. totally confound the order of nature; just as a wicked wretch does, when instead of con­demning himself he condemns his maker. As to that confusion of face and mind, which is the natural result of sin, it will then be compleat, when this other kind of confusion is silenced.— No, no, Doctor, the minds of the wicked will never be calmed, but the storm dreadfully heightened, at the time of judgment; only the wind will then blow in a contrary direction: and whereas the raging waves before sometimes broke against the heavens, now they break and discharge their whole force upon the miserable criminal himself; for God now rules the storm. There is order, in this confusion; the order of the governing truth and righte­ousness of God: it answers to the true nature of things, and in its way is praise to him. But can blasphemy ever be praise to God? Doctor, do think.

2. You say, ‘I believe no one besides Mr. H. ever taught that a weak sense of God's righteousness in opposing the sinner in his evil way, and a low and dull sense of the sinners own faultiness or ill desert, was, is, or can be the CAUSE of their rage, blasphe­my [Page 25] and cursing God,’ (p. 81, 82.) Nor he neither. Doctor, you blunder perpetually, and stumble at noon day as in the night. Please to turn your eye back on the passage you here refer to I there assigned the sinner's wilfulness in sinning on against light, as the cause or source of his blasphemous enmity against God; and his perceiving God's opposition to him in his evil way, as the oc­casion of its flaming out. I only mention a weak sense of &c. and a low and dull sense of, &c. as insufficient to restrain the flow of this cursed passion; insufficient because weak, low, and dull — Doctor, what I said is almost in direct opposition to what you suggest. Don't you see that I consider this sense as having a na­tural tendency to restrain the sinner from blaspheming God, and insufficient to effect it, only from its being too weak and low? I am sorry to see you continually expose yourself as you do: you leave your intelligent reader no other option but pity or con­tempt.

Almost all your reasonings against me, are founded upon a misapprehension and wrong representation of my doctrines and sentiments: For this reason I take little notice of them. So are those of your friend in the notes in your appendix. I call them so because I think you wrote few of them. Perhaps I am mista­ken: if I am it is no great fault: you are not robbed of any glory.

V. Let us now, Doctor, open a new scene—You say (p 117) 'He that carefully reads and attends to what he' (Mr. H) ‘says in his dialogue, especially in p. 30,—36 must see that he has no conception of salvation by free grace alone, but makes works and the sinners endeavors the moral GROUND or reason why God bestows on him renewing and pardoning mercy.’ No, Doctor, such an one will see no such thing: no such thing exists. Indeed they that read with your passion and prejudice may possibly imagine and say such a thing. You add, ‘I will point out a few things. Mr, H supposes that the awakened, unrenewed sinner takes pains to become better,’ &c. &c. (p. 118) Here, Doctor, you quote a few scraps of sentences, picked up here and there, and patch them together with your usual art. Some you have given right, some wrong, and some you have made yourself, and given to your reader as mine, as you have done many other things; for which I neither thank not honor you: this is one, ‘Mr. H. sup­poses that the awakened, unrenewed sinner, truly repents,’ (p. 118▪)

Doctor, you and Mr. Hopkins have greatly misrepresented my doctrine relating to the influence of common grace, and the acti­ons [Page 26] of awakened sinners under it, and both much alike. Why did you not act like honest men, and state my doctrine fairly, and if you had objections to it, offer them clearly? Another method pleased you better.—You, Doctor, misrepresent and aggravate things to the utmost. You say, ‘Mr. H. supposes that the awa­kened, unrenewed sinner grows better under conviction, and therefore is more likely to obtain mercy, and that there is no encou­ragement at all for sinners to strive or hope, if this is not the case. Thus, according to him, the sinner's growing better is the ONLY GOSPEL GROUND of his hope.—Thrice admirable! No com­ment can illustrate the absurdity of this’ (p. 118.) Doctor, you have made your comment already, and entirely perverted the text. Your boldness in falsely accusing is very wonderful —But let us hear you further. ‘Mr. H's reasoning, p 30.—36, a­mounts to this, viz. That awakened sinners should be taught that they really grow better, really please God in their conduct, and are less guilty than when secure, and that this is a ground and reason why they should partake of the divine favor rather than others,’ (p. 119) ‘The only way to keep sinners from discouragement, and prompt them to—constancy in seeking af­ter salvation, is to persuade them that they really grow better, and may hope, by their further increase in goodness, to obtain the favor they need,’ (p. 120.) After much more to this purpose in the same spirit of false representation, you become so inflamed with your own imaginations as to cry out in a transport of absur [...] zeal, ‘Such is Mr. H's religion, such his views of the way of sal­vation by Christ,’ (p. 122.) Doctor, if you had spoken the language of truth in your exclamation, you would have said Such is the religion ‘I have palmed upon Mr. H. tho' he never taught it,’ such are the views I give of his notions concerning the way of salvation by Christ, tho' he has not given the same himself, nor any thing like them: But I am wrathful mad with him for censuring some of my false doctrines, and see every thing he says, in a wrong light.—You proceed thus, ‘No word that I know of can sufficiently describe the wickedness, impiety and absurdity of this opinion, except those of St. Paul, Gal. 1 8, 9. But if we, or an angel from heaven,’ preach any othe [...] gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed. ‘If we ever discover zeal, surely it may be shewn on an occasion lik [...] this,’ (p. 122. Doctor, you are like a bear bereaved of h [...] whelps: But be calm, I beseech you; stand still and consider In your folly you have cast the apostolic curse at my head, be have taken your aim wrong. You only curse your own misre­presentations. [Page 27] I have not taught, nor believed the scandalous doctrines you curse me for: you can't support your charge: you greatly abuse both me and your readers. The wine you here set before the churches, is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

I have critically re examined the pages you refer to and find nothing that gives the least hint of the wicked doctrines you charge me with. I verily believe, if you was to be prosecuted before the church for defamation, as you justly might be, you would be wholly at a loss what passages in the dialogue to fix upon for your justification, and might as easily support your charge by quoting these words of our Lord, Men shall revile you, and speak all manner of evil against you, falsely, as by any thing I said.

I censured some of your's and Mr. Hopkin's corrupt doctrines, and now you have executed an unrighteous and unmanly revenge. The doctrines I opposed to your errors, rightly understood, are above just censure. You could make no figure in opposing them, as fairly stated. You have declined the combat on this ground, and thereby implicitly justified my doctrine. You have brought upon the stage a set of doctrines which are no more mine than those of yours that I opposed, doctrines really very bad; and pretending you had found them in my dialogue, raise a loud cry against me as an abominable heretick, and most dangerous, wick­ed man, and endeavor to alarm the churches. But they have no great cause of fear from this quarter: Your imaginary heresies will do them no harm, unless they believe them real.—Doctor, has Caiaphas been in your counsel? Have you heard the outcry against Paul the great heretick? ‘Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live—They threw dust into the air.’ —You have thrown dust into your readers eyes.

I observe, Doctor, you renew many of Mr. Hopkins's trifling complaints, as his echo. Among others, you speak of my writing against one of his doctrines before I had seen his book, and his defence of it, not then published, and apply these words, ‘He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him,’ (p. 129) Doctor, you knew I had seen all I remark'd upon, and more. And I understood, and fairly represented the doctrine. But you, after having my dialogue in your hands many months, have undertaken to answer it, and yet appear not to have understood it, and have essentially misrepresented my doc­trines, and foolishly wasted your time, and diverted your readers, [Page 28] by attacking the creatures of your own imagination. This, Doctor, is answering a matter before it is heard, according to the true sense of the proverb.

You say, Doctor, I appear angry, in my letter to Mr. Hopkins. I was not angry, in the sense you intend; nor am I with you. But I saw his great unfairness, perverse misrepresentations, and want of honor in his writing; and see the same in yours, and in a higher degree. I resent such things, and have a ju [...] abhorrence and contempt of them; and hope you will see them in a true light, and abhor them in yourself, and renounce them forever. If you do, you will honor yourself in the eyes of the wise and good.

VI. Suffer me, Doctor, to turn your eye upon another object. You quote me as saying, ‘Is the present frame of human nature such, so totally inverted that God is ha [...]ed as being thus excel­lent and morally perfect? Are righteousness, equity, goodness, kindness, &c. hateful in our view of them, till we are new made? If so, doubtless we naturally approve the contrary vices; they are beautiful, excellent, and amiable characters, in our view of them, (D. p 16) To this you answer, 'Doubtless this is true. What absurdity then is this? Do not unregenerate men view and taste a beauty, amiableness and sweetness in these contrary vi­ces? Do they not roll iniquity as a sweet morsel under their tongue? Do they not take pleasure in unrighteousness?’ (p 70) Yes Doctor, they sometimes do, for the sake of the profit and ad­vantage they make by it for the gratification of their lusts; as Balaam ran greedily after the wages of unrighteousness. But they never take pleasure in it for its own sake, as what is, in its own nature, beautiful, amiable and sweet, in their view and taste of it. Vicious men's love of unrighteousness, like their hatred to righteousness, is an interested, partial affection, and directly in­consistent with their natural, moral sense or taste; which pro­nounces these things evil, and worthy to be hated. Doctor, you discover very wrong notions of moral nature, and talk as one that has never made any observations on human nature, as discovered in life, but has taken up his notions of it only from imagination and arbitrary conjecture, just as the old philosophers did their philosophic doctrines. Doctor, I am deceived in you. I really thought my questions, and the inference from the affirmation of them, would have stumbled you: I am half discouraged about you, and should be wholly, but that I consider you wrote this in the heat of your spirit; so I hope now you are calm, you will give a wiser answer.

[Page 29]VII. Doctor, I observe you here and there touch upon the doctrine of total depravity, and say, that I sometimes seem to own the doctrine, and at other times to deny it. The contro­versy I had against you, in my dialogue, respected the nature and source of the enmity of vicious beings against God, not the extent of moral corruption: so I said nothing particularly upon this, as I remember. The subject did not lead me to it, or at least, I did not apprehend that it did. In my letter to Mr. Hopkins p 5, 6, note, I stated what I apprehended to be the sentiments of the most moderate Calvinists relating to the general doctrine of total corruption and declared my agreement therein. I believe I have said nothing, either in the dialogue or letter, so determinate rela­ting to my thoughts upon that subject. My words are these, viz. ‘The most moderate believe that the grand principle of true piety, and heavenly virtue is dead, and its root’ (by which I mean the true knowlege and love of God) ‘perished in the hearts of fallen men, and that it cannot be revived, but by a new plantation of the sacred seed sent down from heaven, by Jesus Christ, and planted in the heart by the gracious influences of the holy Spirit and supernatural grace of God, administred by the gospel,’ (not without the word of truth. Doctor, as you teach; God forbid that I should say so) ‘and that there are certain seeds of sin in the hearts of all men, or natural principles and springs of action, which, left to themselves, uncontrouled and ungoverned by grace will infallibly produce actual sin, and bring forth fruit unto death, and that some or other of the passions or lusts of sin have, in fact the ascendant in every heart of man till the heavenly seed of virtue or true holiness is planted by the spirit of grace. All this is undoubtedly true.’ —This, Doctor, is my belief: you may receive it upon the testimony of an honest man. Whether you will call it a belief of total, or partial corruption, little concerns me.

I observe you tell your readers that in my letter to Mr. Hopkins I discover a great concern to be thought a Calvinist. Some o [...]s, Doctor, have tho't I shew'd a good deal of indifference what you call me. I should chuse indeed to have my sentiments tr [...] represented by gentlemen who undertake to tell the churches who I believe and teach. If they would do me this justice they might give them what name they please. No honest man will desire greater liberty than this.

Doctor, you express a desire to know what I mean by moral corruption. I mean by it a disorder o [...] irregularity in the ten­dency, direction and exercise of the moral faculties and passions, [Page 30] which is justly chargeable on the agent as his fault, his misuse or abuse of the moral powers and passions God has planted in his nature, or deviation from the moral law which is adapted to mo­ral nature as the rule to which its motions and exercises ought of night to be conformed.—As you represent the matter, the fundamental fault or disorder of human nature is not of the moral kind If a man, thro' some wrongness or defect in his natural re­lish, can't taste any agreeable sweetness in honey, but loaths it, this is no fault in him, and a law requiring him to be pleased with its taste, would be a very unjust and immoral law. And if human nature is so framed that men have naturally no capacity of seeing any moral excellence, or of tasting any thing amiable and worthy of esteem and honor in God's character, and in moral truth, be the mind ever so much inlightened, but these objects appear ug­ly and hateful in themselves; this is not a moral corruption, for which the man is blameable, but a physical wrongness in the na­tural constitution of human nature. Your doctrine says this is the character of human nature. You say, ‘Unregenerate men can't see God's beauty and excellency—they do not see the beauty and excellency of God's perfections—unregenerate men can never see this, (i. e. as I suppose you mean, in any degree, thro' any inlightning they are capable of, till after they are new made by a physical operation upon them, without the word of truth.’ You add) ‘They may, and often do see those perfections that compose that character that is beautiful in itself, such as his power, righteousness, &c.—They see the true character of God,’ (i. e. if I understand you, they see him to be most wise, righteous, true, faithful, good, merciful,) 'but they see no beauty in him,' (i. e. no moral excellence in these perfections of God) ‘for that which renders him beautiful to all holy beings, even that is the object of their hatred; and if so, then the beauty of God's cha­racter is the thing they hate, (p. 69, note)’ That is, as you most be understood, they see the wisdom, righteousness, truth, goodness and compassionate good will of God to be what the [...] are; they see him to be most wise, equitable, true, good and gra­cious, and as such they hate him, for these are hateful things in their view, and taste bitter as gall, and are their abomination. If God appeared to them under the character of a foolish, false, un­just, cruel tyrant, they would love him and esteem him very beautiful, and full of excellency, and adore him, and exalt his name with praise. Whence is this, Doctor? You say such a false taste and monstrous hatred is interwove in the very frame of the heart of man, ever since the fall. Doctor, I must tell you again, [Page 31] you make man look much worse than a devil —But let us hear you further. You say, p. 70, note, ‘No excellency, viewed as such, ever was, or can be hated: but then I AFFIRM human nature is so totally inverted, that it can discern no moral excel­lency in God,—till it is renewed; and if ever the unrenewed sinner sees any beauty in a God, it is in one formed to suit his own depraved taste, and not in the true God.’ This is such a total inversion of human nature as wholly destroys its character as moral. If your account of human nature is true, its corruption is not of the moral kind; and men are under a natural, physical impossibility of loving God, or ceasing to hate him, till their hearts are physi­cally changed, and endowed with a new moral faculty or taste, which is now wanting. These hints are more enlarged upon in my piece in answer to Mr. Edwards on the nature of virtue.— Doctor, I am sorry to see your understanding so inverted, and your tho'ts so confounded as that you mistake darkness for light. By your doctrine you subvert the foundation and obligation of natu­ral religion, so far as natural men have any concern therein. And the kingdom of God, or gospel dispensation, according to your doctrine, is as a man who made a great feast of sugar'd and honey'd things, and sent forth his servants to invite and bring in to his feast, all his vassals, who, thro' some fault in the natural construction of their organs of taste, known to him, and wholly incurable by them, hate and abhor these things, requiring them to taste his provisions with good relish and delight; and because they nauseate, and so refuse to eat them, he sends forth his army and destroys them all, as a company of ungrateful, rebellious miscreants; except a few, whom he miraculously works a phy­sical change upon, giving them a new gust. You will say the cases are not similar, because the sinner's antipathy is of his heart or will. But remember, 'tis, according to you, a natural, inwro't, incurable antipathy to things morally good, as such; a natural, essential wrongness & inversion of the moral taste, incurable, but by God's physical power. There is no moral faultiness in either: The cases are similar.—Doctor, I can't endure that abominable blasphemy against the gospel of God which is the necessary result of your doctrines. I wonder you don't see it: I hope you will by the time you have read, and thoroughly weighed all that I write to you, and make no delay to renounce them with just ab­horrence, and cast them to the moles and to the bats.^* Don't [Page 32] you remember the words of the apostle, (Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6.) Those who have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (i. e. of the gospel dispensation) if they shall fall away, &c. implying that a man may have an approving moral taste of the truth and moral excellency of the gospel, in some degree, though his heart is not thoroughly attached to it.—But I think you may be convinced out of your own mouth. You say (p. 75) ‘Mr. H. and I agree in this, That there is in all moral beings as such, a faculty of distinguishing between moral good and evil.’ — Surely you don't mean a faculty of discerning moral good to be right and righteous, and that for this very reason it appears to men an ugly and hateful object; and a faculty of discerning mo­ral evil to be wrong and unrighteous, and that, viewing it in this true light, men naturally esteem it a beautiful, amiable object, and love it as such. This is not a faculty of distinguishing, but of inverting and confounding moral good and evil. At this rate you make the faculty of distinguishing moral good and evil a perfect magic glass, which shews objects inverted and distorted; and represent the moral nature of man, as bewitched, as much as the children of the scarlet whore are, by her witchcrafts and sorce­ries [Page 33] practised upon them—Doubtless you mean here Doctor, to agree with me in acknowleging that by this moral faculty, the mind of man, discerning a real difference between moral good and evil, perceives the one to be right, amiable, and worthy of esteem and honor, and the other wrong worthy of moral h [...]ed and blame. You should lay this as your foundation principle and reject all your imaginations which don't agree with it, if you would be a good moral philosopher, metaphy [...]cian o [...] divine. It is every where taken for granted in the holy scriptures.

VIII. You quote me as saying. ‘No man ever and speak evil of God's ways, viewing them as they truly are, a [...] equitable and good.’ Upon this you say, ‘If he meant seeing their beauty, I readily own i [...]’ (p 132.) I mean, Doctor, seeing them to be equitable and good. This is not what raises the sinner's hatred to them, but his perceiving their opposition to his lusts, which he refuses to give up; and because he can't but approve them, as viewed in this light, he perversely misrepresents them as unequal, that he may with some colour vent the malignity of his heart in speaking evil of them —As to beauty the moral beauty or excellen­cy of equity consists in its equitableness, the beauty of goodness in its goodness, the beauty of justice in its justness, of wisdom in its prudence, so of all other moral perfections. Their moral excellency consists in their being what they are. The beauty or moral excellency of God's character consists in, or is the result of all moral and mental perfections, as united in him, and most har­moniously exercised, all as one. This collection of moral and mental beauties, all in the highest perfection of their nature, forms a character, whose light and glory fill the universe, and is the wonder and joy of all the sons of wisdom, in all worlds. Honor and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.

But you. Doctor, give us no distinct Ideas of what you mean by moral beauty, and the moral excellency of God's character: perhaps you have none. You doubtless mean something wholly of a different kind from that kind of beauty I mentioned above: for you say, men may see those perfections that compose that cha­racter that is beautiful in itself, yea, see that very character of God which is the perfection of beauty, and yet not see its beauty, nor have the least glimpse or idea of its true moral excellency. And all your writers talk in the same strain. This, Doctor, is a downright contradiction: and you have no way to escape but by essentially changing the idea of moral beauty, and introducing a new and imaginary notion of moral excellency, and placing vir­tue on a false foundation. This is what Mr. Edwards has done [Page 34] in his dissertation on the nature of true virtue. Doubtless you have adopted his distinction between the primary and secondary beauty of moral things and characters. The beauty I spake of above, I suppose you would call after him, ‘a secondary beauty, altogether of the same kind with the beauty of a chess board, or piece of beautifully slower'd chints or brocade,’ which, consider [...]d simply in itself, has nothing of the nature of true virtue and mo­ral beauty in it, any more than those things have; and that you would say, all moral excellency, or true moral beauty consists in what he calls the primary beauty of moral things, which is intire­ly of a different nature or kind, and which no unregenerate man can see, which the moral sense can't taste, and has no relish for.

This I suppose to be your secret meaning; tho' for some reason or other, you don't clearly explain yourselves. This is the key which explains your mysterious talk about seeing the perfections and character of God without discerning any thing of their moral beauty or excellency. But I don't enlarge here, having parti­cularly examined these notions, and shewn them to be arbitrary and false, in my remarks on that piece of Mr. Edwards's.

You say, Doctor, ‘a perception of beauty is love, or necessarily engages it.’ No, it necessarily engages the mind to approve the object as amiable and worthy to be loved. Indeed the perception of the moral beauty of God's character may be so full, clear and realizing as to draw the heart off from all its adulterous loves, and fix it on God. He can give such a sense. But the views men generally have of God's moral excellency and glory, are so imperfect, obscure and unrealizing, that they don't draw the heart to the choice of him, in preference to all other objects of desire.

IX. In your seventh sect. Doctor, I observe you endeavor to persuade your readers that my scheme of doctrines agrees with Mr. Sandeman's. If I was to take the same liberty in altering your doctrines, as you do in respect to mine, I could make you appear to agree with the author of ‘Christianity not founded on argument.’ I need not pervert some of them half so much as you do mine, to give such an appearance. 'Tis an avowed and leading principle in your scheme, that the moral change of the heart is not founded on argument, nor effected by any influence of gospel light and truth upon either the understanding or will. But if I should spend five or six pages in making out this agree­ment, you would think it but an ungracious business. You ought to think your own so.—Your scheme nearly agrees with San­deman's, in many things, tho' you differ from him in some. For [Page 35] this reason I sometimes loosely called your scheme Sandemanian, as it then had no distinguishing name. But as it has since gain'd the name of Hopkintonian, which is more proper, I am content that the other should be no more applied.

You say, ‘In support of his (Mr [...]s) notion he quotes these words, We love him because he first loved us. This, he thinks, proves that when the sinner sees God's character, not only as amiable in itself,—but also how it bears a be [...]ign aspect on his happiness, then he will love God to good purpose. Sandeman's scheme to perfection, who says, the gospel reconciles men to the just God, by shewing him to be a SAVIOUR.’ p. 124. I should not have taken any notice of this, had you not hereby thrown infa­mous contempt on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Every reader will see at once, that you treat the sentiments you offer as mine and Sandeman's with contempt. In this you have despised not man but God You might as well have cried out, The gospel scheme to perfection. This tho't, The gospel reconciles men to the just God, by shewing him to be a saviour, runs thro' the whole gospel, and is its distinguishing glory, and that which merits and gives it the name of gospel or good news. It was a manifestation and sight of the just God as a SAVIOUR that revived the despairing hearts of your poor first parents, and reconciled them to God, and melted their hearts into filial repentance. But for this, you, if you had ever seen the light of life, would have been a poor, for­saken, miserable wretch It was by shewing the just God a savi­our that the apostles of Jesus Christ ministerially reconciled the world. This is their voice which crieth in city and country, and thro' the world God was, in Christ, reconciling the world unto him­self, not imputing their trespasses unto them — Now then—We beseech you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God: for he hath made him sin for us—that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Every sinner that ever was, is, or shall be reconciled to God, is reconciled by seeing the just God a saviour. Doctor, I readily agree with you, and Sandeman too, wherein you agree with the truth; for I have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, with respect to persons, but to the truth. But I am very far from ap­proving either your scheme or his; for both run wide of the line of truth. The father of error knows how to turn both to his advantage.

X. In your 8th section, Doctor, you endeavor to prove by a number of quotations from old writers, that your divinity is not new. I never tho't or said that all the doctrines you gentlemen, in the new scheme teach, are new; but some of them are. Mr. [Page 36] Hopkins calls them 'an improvement of sound Calvinism.' If in­stead of improvement, he had said a corruption, he would have come nearer the truth — Before the dialogue appeared, your fra [...]ernity swel [...]ed a [...]le in the tho't of your having made [...]me new discoveries, and further improvements. Now you seem willing to give up this glory and end [...]o [...] to shelter yourselves under the wings of a number of old [...]ines. But they are too narrow wholly to cover your nakedness.—Some of the old divines talk [...]d of a physi [...]al operation of the Spirit in generating the sinner, and distinguish between active and p [...]ssive conversion: But in the pa [...]ss [...]e pa [...] wherein the Spirit is the agent and [...]he mind the patient they generally, it not always include the c [...]mmuni­cation of a saving illumination of the understanding, together with a change of the bent of the will D. VanMa [...]i [...]t is very exp [...]icit in this; so is the We [...]n ins [...]e [...] assembly. Mr Edwards, whom you glory in as your pa [...]ron and justifier, condemns you, while he says, 'Whatever is a motive,' (i. e to choice or vo [...]iti­on) ‘must be something that is extant in the view or apprehension of the understanding or perceiving faculty. Nothing can induce or inv [...]e the [...]in [...] to will or act any thing, any further than it is perceived, or is some way or other in the mind's view; for what is wholly unfe [...]cerved and perfectly out of the mind's view, can't affect the mind [...]t all.’ (on the will, p. 8.) This is a maxim of true philosophic and metaphysic science.

Doctor, you quote these words from my Dialogue, with an introduction worthy of yourself; ‘All judicious Calvinist divines, who understand themselves, constantly ass [...]rt that conversion or regeneration is wro [...]t by light, by the moral power of divine truth and love, as believ [...]d and realized’ On this you say. ‘If this is true it follows, either (1) that the Westminster assembly of divines, and others I have quoted, were not Calvinists or (2) did not understand themselves.’ (p 151) Suppose Doctor, I should grant you the second, would this be a betraying the foundation of our faith? But I presume you did not fully under­stand, either me or them, when you wrote this: be this as it will You add, ‘I think Mr H greatly misrepresents and in­jures the Calvinists in the above assertion, tho' I acknowledge that many who are sound in other points generally called Cal­vinistic have run into this opinion; particularly the Rev. JONA­THAN DICKISSON on the five points’ — By ru [...]ning I sup­pose you m [...]an departing from the true Calvinistic doctrine, rela­ting to this point. If this is your meaning. 'tis you that have run, not they that you complain of, Calvin himself hold and [Page 37] taught the doctrine you represent as the doctrine of the runaways. Speaking of the inward teaching of the holy Spirit, accompanying the outward teaching by the word, and rendering that effectual, he says, ‘In vain should the light shew itself to the blind, unless the same spirit of understanding should open the eyes of their mind: so as a man may rightly call the Holy Spirit the key by which the treasures of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto us; and may call his enlightning the eye sight of our mind to see. Therefore doth Paul so much commend the ministry of the Spirit, because teachers should cry without profiting, unless Christ himself, the inward master, should draw them by his Spirit.—Therefore, as we have said that perfect salvation is found in the person of Christ; so, that we may be made parta­kers thereof, he do [...]h baptize us in the holy Spirit—lightening us into the faith of his gospel and SO NEW BEGETTING US, that we may renew creatures.’ (see his Institutions, b. 3 ch 1. at the close I here use Norton's translation.) You may see much more to the same purpose in the two next chapters I give you two or three passages. ‘As for them that think that repentance d [...]th rather go before saith, than slow or spring forth of it, as a fruit out of a tree, they never knew the force thereof, and are moved with too weak an argument to think so.’ (ibid. ch. 3 art. 1.) By repentance, here, he tells us he means to include regeneration, or the renewal of the heart after the image of God, as well as the consequent change of life. After discoursing upon this some time, he says, in the 9th article of this chap ‘In one word, I expound repentance to be regeneration, which hath no other mark whereunto it is directed, but that the image of God, which was, by Adam's offence, foully defaced, and in a manner wholly blotted out, may be renewed in us. So the apostle teacheth when he saith, But we representing’ (beholding) ‘the glory of God, wi [...]h uncovered face, are transformed into the same image, out of glory into glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord’ (Here, Doc­tor, by the way, you may observe that Calvin understood and applied this text just as I did in the dialogue. You may take this as an answer to your impertinent remarks upon my use of it, if you please)

Doctor, you see these passages from Calvin are directly in point. Was Calvin a sound Calvinist? If he was (and you can't deny this, without bringing the laugh of the world upon yourself) I am clearly justified in saying, ‘all sound Calvinist divines, who understand themselves, constantly assert that conversion or rege­neration is wro't by light, by the moral power of divine truth [Page 38] and love, as believed and realized,’ and have not injured them at all: and Mr. Dickinson and other Calvinists, who, you say, are run into this opinion, and become unsound Calvinists in this point, have not run at all, but think and teach, in this, just as you see Calvin did. You Doctor, and your brethren in the new scheme are the runaways You are convicted out of your own mouth; for you tell us. p. 151, that in your younger years you was of Mr. Dickinson's opinion, but his doctrine always appeared confused. Your new opinion, for the sake of which you have gi­ven up the other, is confusion itself, and if it prevails will spread darkness over the face of the churches; and yet you are sensible of no confusion here. How is this to be accounted for?

You mention Van Mastricht as one who justifies your new doc­trines. I have seen the extracts from him lately published He clearly condemns you, Doctor. He says, ‘Regeneration is a second and spiritual generation, in which the soul receives spiritual life. The father in this case is God—the seed is the word of God— received by the external call of the Gospel,’ (p. 17) Doctor, you say this seed, thus received into the mind of the unregenerate, only inflames enmity against God; that this change is [...]ought without any influence of gospel truth upon the heart. In this, you see your witness condemns you. Doctor, can this word be the generating seed of the new creature, and yet the generator make no use of it, not apply it at all to the heart, in the genera­ting act? Mastricht also says, ‘This spiritual life, which he calls the immediate effect of the generating act, animates the whole man, and all the several parts and faculties of him. — As it takes place in the understanding, it is called—spiritual light, and the bestowment of it by regeneration, is called illumination;— which light begets in them the saving knowlege of God and the Me­diator,’ (p 25) This, Doctor, is wholly inconsistent with your new doctrine, which says, regeneration is wro't without light, and before saving illumination. In this you are condemned by the scriptures and condemned by these old writers, to whom you now appeal.

You Gentlemen, by the many quotations you have heaped up­on us, from former writers, have gained two things; first, a proof that some great and good men before you have tho't obscure­ly, and talked inconsistently, as you also do. Secondly, That those who approached nearest to you in doctrine, retained so much truth as clearly to condemn your leading doctrines, and themselves too, wherein they seem to favor you.—So that, upon the whole, I think, Doctor, you must be content to bear the glory of having [Page 39] made some new discoveries, and 'further improvements in Calvinism.' But whence is it that all the errors you run into are sound Calvin­ism, and all the truths which let or withstand them, are Armini­anism?

XI. Doctor, I observe that tho' you sometimes tell your rea­ders what I must mean by the moral power of the Spirit, moral force, energy, influence, yet at other times you profess yourself at a loss, and demand of me what I mean by these and such like phrases. Some others, I perceive, have been in doubt here.— To satisfy you and them, I will tell you in a few words By moral power, force, &c. I intend that kind of influence upon the mind, which is fitted, in its nature, to produce the designed moral effects or changes, motions or actions in the mind, as a moral agent. This, you will say, is too general: I will explain, only take the ideas already suggested, right.—There is a power in strong delusions, an efficacy and energy in the spirit of error upon minds prepared to receive it: but it is not of the physical kind.^* And there is a divine power in sacred truth, and a mighty acting force and energy in divine beauty and love, as applying themselves to, or exerting their power upon the mind. 'Love is strong as 'death.^† 'The love of Christ constraineth us.' ^§ This power and strength and constraining force is of the moral kind, adapted in its nature to influence moral agents.

I will now consider the moral power and energy of the holy Spirit, exerted in morally changing and turning the heart of the sinner from his sin unto God, or regenerating him. He applies himself to him, for this purpose, in a manner suited to his nature as a moral being: He presents the quickning truth ‘to the view of the understanding, or perceiving faculty,’ and holds it so be­fore the eye of the mind, and impresses the object with such force, as awakens and fixes the attention of the mind and by his inward teaching and influence, causes the mind to see the object as it is, as a real, existing thing, not as an imagination or mere probability, and as vastly great, excellent, interesting and impor­tant. The truth, or object, thus presented to the view of the understanding, and entered into the mind by the Spirit of God, is now felt by the mind in its true weight, and exer [...]s its moral, con­straining force upon the heart; and being seen and sensed as so infinitely superior, every way, to all contrary objects, it sweetly and powerfully commands the choice of the will, attracts and fixes the love of the heart, and engages all the moral passions. The mind and heart is now morally changed, by a moral power, opera­tion [Page 40] and energy of the Spirit and truth of God —I know, Doctor, what you are now objecting about moral su [...]sion, unless your present tho'ts are clearer and juster than they were when you wrote against me: but carry your tho'ts a little further, first. —What is this quickening truth, this attracting object, which, by the ministry of the holy Spirit, is thus bro [...]t to the view of the mind, and entered into the heart, and so holly and happily cap­tivates it? It is God revealed to sinners in Christ, and reconci­ling them to himself by him. And wh [...]n he vouchsafes to make himself thus present to the mind, by his Spirit he does reconci [...]e and draw the heart to himself: He is in Christ our center; and now his divine, moral, attracting force is exerted upon the mind, felt, and answered by a returning moral motion, tendency and earnest attraction of the heart towards him —Doctor you are hunting about in the dark after some latent principle or spring of this motion or attraction of the heart to God As an unknown substratum of all these new and holy motions or actings of the soul; and pretend this is first formed by a creating physical act: but this unknown something, is really nothing. The soul, as a moral being, is naturally capable of feeling the impression of God upon it, of being attracted by him, and answering this felt attraction, by an attraction to him. Gods attracting force impressed and felt, is the thing that puts the mind in motion t [...]nding to him, and controuls and stops its contrary motions to evil objects. In this way he causes this first beginning motion of the heart towards him; which is the beginning of holiness in man. You are as un­philosophical in your notion of a new, holy principle in the heart, prior to the first holy motion of the heart towards God, and as the imagined cause or secret spring of this first motion, as you would be if you should say, there must be a new principle of par­ticular motion put into bodies, before any force exerted upon them can put them in such motion, or alter the direction of their former motion and reverse it.

Doctor, to talk of a moral change, wro't by a physical operati­on, as preceeding all this, and preparing the heart to be influenced by the truth and presence of God in the mind, as you gentlemen do, is to tell of a moral change preceeding itself, or of a moral change which leaves the understanding, will and moral passions un­changed, unaffected not touched or moved at all; which is no moral change. Motives presented to the view of the mind, Mr. Ed­wards says, are what move the will, and that without the influ­ence of motives, the will can't act or chuse any thing, one way of another. A physical operation, without presenting any object of [Page 41] motive to holy volition, to the view of the mind, can't then pro­duce a moral change in the heart, or give a new, holy turn and disposition to the will and moral passions, any more than motives, or moral force can wind up a watch that is run down, and give it new motion.^*

I must take a little notice of one thing more, before I dismiss this subject. I observed in the dialogu [...] (p. 45, note) that ‘power may be distinguished into two kinds, physical and moral, that the Spirit of God is possessed of both, and exerts the one or the other, as he wills to produce a change of the moral or physical kind’ Upon this you say, ‘Did ever any one besides Mr. H. imagine that the same almighty power could not produce effects of entirely different natures?’ (No, Doctor, nor he neither. ‘Did not the same power produce fire and water, the souls and bodies of men?’ (p. 135) Yes, Doctor, it did. But what is all this to the purpose? These are, none of them, effects of the moral kind, in the sense of the phrase as I used it. And besides, you mistake about the distinction of power, into moral and physical. The distinction don't lie in the degrees of strength. Both are almighty, as in God; and have, when he pleases to exert them fully, an irresistable force. But the distinction consists in this, Gods moral power, in act, is his exertion of the force of moral truth upon moral beings, upon their moral faculties, giving mo­tion to them, or springing them into such right, moral action as God wills or commands in his law. These moral faculties are [Page 42] fitted, by the original constitution of intelligent minds or moral ha [...]ur [...], to be thus acted upon, influenced and put in motion or action, by God's exertion of this kind of power or force upon them —By physical power, as distinguished from what I call mo­ral I mean that kind of exertion of the powerful will of God, whereby he produces the designed effects, without any commu­nication and impression of the light and force of truth upon the object I don't know, Doctor, whether I express myself with strict propriety; but I hope you take my ideas. And is there not a foundation, in the nature of things, for such a kind of distincti­on? Does God give motion to the heavenly bodies, and direct and govern their motions, by the same kind of influence and operation o [...] force exerted upon them, as that by which he com­municates moral motion to the minds of his holy angels, and di [...]ects, influences and governs their moral and holy actions and exercises? Does he manifest his glory and beauty to the sun, and give it to know his will, and thereby touch an inward moral spring, and so cause it to rejoice, with understanding, to run its race, and know the time of its rising and going down? A stream of water falling upon the water wheel, with a degree of force superior to the resistence, will set the mill in motion: and a stream of gospel light stowing from the fountain of light, and falling upon the mind of a sinner, with a degree of force superior to his resistence, will powerfully compel him to believe; and a blaze of moral beauty, and flow of divine love into his heart, made manifest by the light which shines within him, will powerfully draw she heart to God, and kindle the sire of sacred love to him. Is the force exerted upon the mill, of the same kind with that ex­erted upon the moral being? Doctor, do you exert the same kind of power or force in giving motion to a ball, as in commu­nicating motion to the mind, will and passions of a man? The common people understand the distinction well enough, tho' per­haps their ideas are not connected with the terms I used to ex­press it. Nothing is more familiar with them than such expres­sions as these; a strong man, a man of a strong arm strong argu­ments, strong reasonings; such a man preaches powerfully, ano­ther fights powerfully They know how to distinguish here, two different kinds of power, strength and action I wonder, Doctor, you was at a loss You say, I wish Mr H. would tell ‘us what he means by the moral power of [...]he Spirit, &c. This phrase, to me, appears quite unintelligible and to be words without ideas.’ (p 134, 135. note.) Perhaps I did not suffi­ciently explain myself; but I tho't you would have understood me. The ideas I communicated relating to these matters, appear [Page 43] to have been new to you, and so you did not clearly apprehend them, and imagined I had no clearer ideas of these things than you received in reading the dialogue. It was with you, as with the man whose eyes were partly opened; he saw man as trees walking I hope. Sir, you see these things in a clear light now.

XII. I observe, Doctor, you begin to adopt m [...] doctrine con­cerning the nature and source of the sinners enmity to God and righteousness. You say, (p. 99) 'Enmity' ( [...]e of sinners against God) ‘is not the less wicked and hateful, because it is interested and partial; for its wickedness lies in its being so. I can conceive of no wicked enmity, but such as is interested. Such was the en­mity of Cain to Abel; of Esau to Jacob; of Saul to David: and for this reason it was very wicked.’ You add, ‘and because selfshness is innate, therefore this enmity is so too.’ (This last clause I may consider presently) In the preceeding you assert the same doctrine that I advanced relating to this enmity; only you insinuate to your re [...]ders that your notion is essentially diffe­rent from mine, in this, that you make the wickedness of this en­mity to consist in its being interested and partial, whereas I consi­dered this as an extenuation of its faultiness. And this you ex­presly assert, p 91, where you say. ‘He (Mr H) would have the sinner know that he is not chargeable with any great fault on account of this enmity. He calls it, by way of extenuation, an interested, partial affection, an unnatural passion that does violence to the moral sense planted in the mind by the hand of the Crea­tor.’ You here refer to p 57, 58 D [...] for your justification: but it wholly condemns you These are my words, p 58. ‘This enmity to God is an interested, unnatural passion, and does violence to the moral sense planted in the mind by the hand of the C [...]eator; and herein l [...]es the great malignity of wilful sin.’ [...]e in the sinner's wilfully sinning against his conscience or mo­ral sense of what is right, for the sake of his lusts —What you tell your readers is in direct opposition to what I said; it is an abso­lute falshood. I think you could not but know it to be so; for you quoted the words immediately preceeding this clause and certainly you have sense enough to see the opposition between your proposition and mine: It is a very injurious falshood — I could mention a great number of instances wherein you are guilty of the same kind of sin. You seem, Doctor to have set yourself down to defame your brother as much as you could, and to have founded your piece against me upon this maxim of the worst policy, 'Throw dirt plentifully, some will stick.' By this method of defence, you confess your cause bad. Error can only [Page 44] be defended by falshood and misrepresentation. You certainly harkened to very bad advice and wrote under a very evil influ­ence. I advise you to confess with David—When you do, I desire you may hear the same reviving answer.

Now, Doctor, a word or two upon the last clause quoted above, viz. ‘And because selfishness is innate, therefore this enmity is so too.’ In this you make this enmity, not a primary or original passion of human nature, but a secondary passion only, a conse­quence and result of one particular wrong affection, selfishness; you make it so in the order of nature at least.

By selfishness, I suppose, Doctor, you mean more than self-love, or a general desire of our own good and happiness. I presume you mean by it a vicious and irregular direction and exercise of the natural passion of love to ourselves or desire of our own good; a setting up self as the supreme object of our regard, sub­ordinating God's interest and honor to self, and such a foolish re­gard to little self as disposes to trample upon truth, equity and honor, for the sake of little and false self interests. If this is what you mean by selfishness, it is a very vicious passion; and enmity to those persons and things that stand in its way, very easily and naturally arises out of it. And when this monster is provoked, he lays about him with fury: no weapon comes amiss to him by which he may offend the objects of his hatred, and defend and avenge dear self. Hence come wars and fightings, reviling, lying, cursing, blasphemy, or giving false and injurious characters. This was the true source of all the malicious falshoods spoken against our Saviour and his apostles. And he foretells that the same spirit which called the master of the house B [...]elz [...]bub will call those of his houshold so.— But you are mistaken. Doctor, if you think all this innate. The general passion, or principle of self love or desire of our own good is indeed so. But this, in it­self, simply considered, is not evil; the wrong direction, and ir­regular and excessive motions of it, only are so. This is the effect of the wrong ideas and imaginations we receive, and the wrong judgments we make concerning ourselves and our own good and interest after we come upon the stage. Indeed, if man is left to himself he will infallibly be misled his natural p [...]ssions will take a wrong direction, and fix on wrong objects: he will be corrupt, wicked and miserable. Nothing but the teaching, spirit and grace of God can prevent this, and guide the young creature right, and give a right direction to the natural passions, and fix them on their proper objects.

You say (p. 108) ‘Surely Mr. H. never read the best writers [Page 45] on ethics. I beg leave to recommend Edwards on the will.’ —Doctor, your advice comes too late. I read that book many years ago, and have re-examined it lately. There are some good things in it, and some very wrong. I have made some remarks upon it, shewing the falshood, and destructive tendency of some of his doctrines. You may publish this, with the other, if you please, it may possibly enlighten you a little.

XIII. In your postscript, Doctor, you take notice of my letter to Mr. Hopkins, and treat it as you did the dialogue, and by par­tial quotations and wrong representations, attempt to deceive your readers, and to set the D and L. a quarrelling. I will give you two instances. You quote me as saying in the Letter, ‘Men who admit this doctrine’ (i. e. of total depravity) ‘do and may very consistently deny your doctrine concerning the nature of the enmity. There is an essential difference between your doctrine concerning the nature of the enmity, and their doctrine of the corruption.’ —On this you say, ‘But it seems that he ex­pects us to believe this on his naked assertion; for he has been very careful not to shew wherein the distinction lies, unless we may gather it from these words;’ ‘They (i e. all sound Calvinists) believe the corruption is of the moral kind. But this shews no difference; because—we believe the enmity we hold to be of the moral kind’ (p. 160) Here, Doctor, you have played foul in a very scandalous manner You have designedly concealed from your reader the chief difference I mentioned between your doc­trine concerning the nature of the enmity and their doctrine con­cerning the corruption, and told him I mentioned no other diffe­rence but what you quoted, knowing you did not speak true in this I here give the passage as it stands in my Letter, p. 7, and put the words you concealed, in Italics. Let the reader compare and judge for himself. 'Men who admit this doctrine' (of total depravity) ‘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 CURABLE by an application of that supernatural doctrine of truth and grace which came by Jesus Christ, in such a manner as the Spirit of God knows how to apply it. There is an essential difference between your doctrine concern­ing the enmity—and their doctrine of the corruption.’ — You know, Doctor, this difference, which you bid under a cover­ing —is real and essential. You and Mr. Hopkins assert the direct contrary concerning the nature of your enmity, viz that it is not curable by any possible application of gospel truth to the mind. By concealing this mentioned difference, and telling your readers [Page 46] I have 'been very careful not to shew wherein the difference lies, 'except only by saying, ‘they believe the corruption is on a moral kind.’ You have given them just cause to complain of you and say, 'thou hast unworthily deceived us.'

In my letter to Mr. Hopkins, I told him he had put the con­troversy on a wrong foot in saying that total depravity is [...]a [...]y the only thing in dispute; that what I opposed was your doctrine concerning the nature of the enmity—and gave this just summary of it, viz. ‘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 applying 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 doctrine I opposed in my dialogue, and did so effectually overthrow, that you and Mr Hopkins both have tho't it expedi­ent to shift the controversy, and tell your readers the dispute is about the doctrine of total corruption. And you have underta­ken to prove that you have stated the controversy right, and that I shamefully denied the truth of fact in telling Mr. Hopkins he had stated it wrong. Let us see how you do this.

Having quoted two passages from the dialogue, and made an impertinent remark, misrepresenting their sense, you add, ‘I could fill whole pages with quotations of this kind’ (i e with quotations not at all to your purpose) ‘but shall only mention one more, where he expresly puts the controversy upon the foot of total depravity. Having quoted from my sermon the following words, viz. The minds of men are too full of enmity to be per­suaded to love or be reconciled to God, by any, tho' the most powerful arguments; therefore I do not think that regene­ration is effected by light,—but in order to this the power of God must be exerted, and by this alone men are created anew; he adds, if the premises are true, the inference is undoubtedly just. And yet in the face of all this—he te [...]ls Mr Hopkins that it is an unwarrantable assertion to say, the controversy does, by his (Mr. H's) own acknowlegement, turn upon the doctrine of man's total corruption.’ (p. 159) More soul play, Doctor, exceeding soul. What I called the premises, in the passage you refer to, you have concealed from your readers, and took the inference, your [Page 47] own inference, and tore it into two pieces and set up one for the premise, and call the other the inference from it. By this won­derful contrivance you endeavor to deceive your readers, into a belief that I did really have the controversy as you and Mr. Hop­kins say, and that I was guilty of palpable falshood in denying it to him.

I don't expect the reader to believe this charge without evi­dence of its truth; and therefore must transcribe that passage in the dialogue you refer to. I [...] is in the 25th page.

‘Gent The Dr lays it down as a just inference from what he had said BEFORE concerning the NATURE and power of the enmity of man [...]s heart against the nature and moral character of God, that men are not converted [...]o God by moral suasion. i e. by any ra­tional arguments, whereby then hearts are influenced to turn from sin to God.’ (Ser. p 52 1st edit) This, Doctor, is the inference you draw from the doctrine concerning the nature and power of the enmity against God, which you had before laid down in the doctrinal part of your discourse. It is the head pro­position in your second remark, by way of inference from your doctrine concerning the enmity; a summary whereof I gave you just now.—The Gent. quoted some others of your words, in your discourse under this head, in which you exprest this inference more strongly: ‘The minds of men are too full of enmity to God, to be persuaded to love and be reconciled to him by any, tho' the most powerful arguments, address [...]d to their understanding or affections; therefore I don't think that regeneration is effected by light, i. e. by presenting the things of religion to their minds, or even by opening their eyes to see them; but in order to this the power of God must be exerted, and by this alone men are created anew.’ (p 53. 1st edit.) Your inference from your doc­trine concerning the nature and power of in wro't enmity, before laid down in the body of your sermon, being now fairly given in your own words, the Clerg rep [...]ies. ‘If the premises are true, the inference is undoubtedly just.’ By the premises he evidently and certainly means what you had before said in the body of your discourse concerning the nature and power of the enmity; from which the Gent. said you drew the inference.

I have also observed your efforts to clear your scheme of doc­trine from the bad consequences I charged upon it But they justly lie at the door, and always will: I could easily shew the utter insufficiency of your [...] [...]nings for this purpose: But I may not now trespass further upon the readers patience, by going into a critical examination of them. If he is judicious, unbiassed and [Page 48] furnished with knowlege, he will readily perceive the weakness of your defence. I don't mean here to intimate any thing dishonorable to your understanding, Doctor The weakness lies in the cause you have espoused. Error can't be defended with real strength, no, not by an angel. Good angels will never un­dertake its defence. I wish you would give it up, and leave the doctrine of errors to be defended by those to whom they properly belong. What have we to do with them? Our honor is con­nected with the truth: on the contrary side we gain nothing but shame: victory there, over the weak and credulous, is it fa­my and confusion. The deceived and deceiver are his, and dust shall be the serpent's food

XIV. The criticisms, Doctor, by which you endeavour to evade the force of the texts I mentioned as inconsistent with your doctrine, are so manifestly impertinent as not to need a particular answer. I only mention two, as a specimen of your skill, and the liberty you take in evading the testimony of the truth itself. But I must observe one thing you say just before you come to re­mark on them.

'He' (Mr. H) ‘supposes that because the word is called the sword of the Spirit, it has power to regenerate But has a sword any power at all?—The written word has no power but what ari­ses from the energy of the Spirit or the testimony of conscience.’ (p 125.) Doctor, you know very well that I did not suppose what you here suggest, but spake repeatedly of the holy Spirit acting upon the mind with the word, in producing this change, and expressed my sentiments very fully that the outward teaching of the written word, without his concurring influence, can't ef­fect this holy change. In the place you refer to, where I call the word of God the sword of the Spirit, I spake of the Spirit as the agent using this sword. See the pages refered to below ^* This very phrase, 'the energy of the Spirit' accompanying the word, which you here use in a pretended opposition to me, you found in my dialogue. You repeatedly own what I here represent as my doctrine, to be indeed so. You say, p. 111, 'He' (Mr. H) ‘owns that men neither will nor can be influenced to believe sa­vingly, by the most powerful gospel motives, without the powerful energy of the Spirit.’ And in p. 113, you say, ‘We agree that the motives have no power till the Spirit exerts some kind of energy, so that their efficacy is only with, and never without it.—We agree in this’ Thus. Doctor you have borne witness against yourself, that you testified a known falshood in the pas­sage now under censure. Why will you kill yourself in order to [Page 49] throw false reproach upon me? Instances of the same kind are numerous. You have given full evidence that you are worthy of no credit as a witness against me.

I now proceed to observe how you evade two of the texts I mentioned as evidence that God uses and applies the gospel truth to the mind in renewing or regenerating men.—I mentioned this text for this purpose, Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, (Jam. 1.18) On this you say, ‘But in order to make this serve his turn, he must prove that the word begat means regeneration properly taken for the implanting or creating a divine principle in the heart, as distinguished from active con­version, or the exercise of the new principle when given: till this is proved the text can't help his cause,’ (p. 126) When it is, you hereby own that it will. I should have thought this needed no proof. For what you call ‘active conversion, or the exercise of the new principle,’ is the act of the man, not of God as a generator, a consequence or fruit of the work of God in be­getting or forming him a new creature: and so I think you al­ways represent it except here to avoid the force of this text.— Doctor, when you see a child exercising the life and power he is endowed with, you don't say his father begat these exercises, but that he begat the child, and the child does the actions.— The holy Ghost speaketh expresly, and in a very determinate manner, as foreseeing and guarding against this perversion of his words in favor of your corrupt doctrines. ‘Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures,’ i. e. in the new creation: Behold, saith the Lord, I create all things new The souls of men are created anew, renewed in knowlege, after God's image. He hath begot­ten us; not our actions of the new and holy kind, but ourselves. We are new begotten by God, and so new born and his children: can the sense of words be more obvious and fixed? So it is said, God's people shall be trees of righteousness of the Lord's plant­ing: and our Saviour says, make the tree good that his fruit may be good. God makes the tree good, a tree of righteousness; which respects the moral change of the mind and heart in regeneration or conversion; in consequence of which the tree bears good fruit.

But you say, ‘The Greek word (apekuese) rendered begat, may—be rendered impregnated; and so Dr Doddridge renders it—and this is the most natural meaning of the word in the 15th ver. Sin when it is finished or perpetrate [...] bringeth forth, or rather is impregnated with death.’ Doctor, sin is here figu­ratively represented as a mother, and death as her on [...]pring. [Page 50] Now a mother conceives feed, is impregnated, is pregnant, and brings forth her children. But where did you ever hear it said that the father in the act of begetting impregnates the child? This word as respecting the father's act as a generator is rightly rendered beget, and can't be rendered impregnated, in respect to the child begotten, without the greatest absurdity. In this text we ourselves are represented, not as a mother impregnated, but as the creatures or children begotten.

I only mention one thing more. You seem to think our Lord's parable of the sower affords prooff that regeneration, or the ma­king the heart good and honest, is wro't by a mere physical pow­er or operation, without any influence of gospel truth in the heart. (p. 127) Your reasoning on this parable is not good: it does not favor your cause Our Lord's manifest design in this parable, is to point out the causes of the gospel's not producing the fruit of a holy and good life in so many who hear it, viz. the lusts of their hearts which they will not part with; and to shew that if men are of a good and honest heart, they will, by the ministration of the gospel to them, be rendered fruitful in the righteous fruits of a good and christian life. He says nothing here how the heart is made good. Parables will not endure to be strained beyond their manifest design, in support of doctrines they are not intend­ed to teach or explain. Our Lord does not here say, the heart is made good by the influence of gospel truth upon the mind, neither does he say the contrary, but only says the gospel prevails to make the life truly good only in those whose hearts are good. From hence you argue that the heart is made good without any influence of the word of God.—Doctor, by taking the same liberty in wandering from the design of the parable that you do, I can prove that the hearts of good men are naturally good, and reason full as well as you do; thus, the Lord says nothing about making the heart good, but rather intimates that when the sower sows his seed he finds some pieces of ground, some hearts, already good; and we know some parts of literal ground are naturally good. If you don't like my reasoning and inference, you ought to dislike your own, for it is less plausible than mine. Doctor, if you would know how the hearts of men are made good and honest, you must look for an account of it in those texts that speak of this, not in those that say nothing about it.

Another text I opposed to this doctrine of yours, you thus in­troduce and remark upon. ‘His second evidence he introduces thus, Jesus says to the unconverted Jews, if ye continue in my word—ye shall know the truth, And the truth shall make you [Page 51] free.’ (John 8.31, 32.) ‘N. B. Mr. H. says these Jews were unconverted: but let us hear the text; Then Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, &c.’ (p. 126) This is all you say in the text of your discourse

I suppose, Doctor, after you had wrote this, you reflected that it is most evident, from the context, that these Jews were really unconverted, and unregenerate too; that their faith was far from being saving, was nothing more than a momentary, light persua­sion that Jesus was their expected Messiah; which they were in­duced to admit from an imagination that he was come to enrich them with worldly good things, and which they laid down again upon the spot, as soon as they perceived that he was like to dis­appoint these carnal hopes; and so, that I was right in calling them unconverted. Doctor, you know very well that such was their faith, and such their character; I presume you do. You perceiv'd that what you said, carried an intimation that you tho't these Jews were true believers, and that this would not be satis­fying: and therefore you added in a note, ‘Whether these Jews were really converts or not, I will not determine.’ You can't but know that the context clearly determines they were not. You dare not say they were, in the face of such decisive evidence; and you would not say they were not, because if you admitted this, you could not avoid the evidence the text gives in that your notions concerning regeneration, are false. So you gave much such a prudent answer as the parents of the blind man gave,— 'Who hath opened his eyes, we know not.'—You think to get rid of this troublesome text, by saying (and this is all you further say) ‘However, this is certain, that Christ speaks to them as be­lievers on him: and therefore these words are nothing to Mr. H's purpose.’ In this, Doctor, you implicitly acknowlege that if he had spoken to them as unconverted, they would have been much to my purpose. Well, but he did speak to them as uncon­verted, and under the present dominion of vicious lusts, and points out to them the way and means by which they might be delivered from them, be regenerated.

XV. Doctor, you tell us you ‘maintain the necessity of a constant, diligent, careful attendance on all the means of know­lege or of grace which God has appointed; and that the neglect of them is a grievous sin, highly provoking to God, hazardous to the soul—and therefore press people to the diligent use of them,’ p. 129. I don't blame you for this.—I presume you call them 'means of knowlege or of grace' upon design. For, upon your principles, they are not means of grace, if by grace is meant any [Page 52] more than knowlege: and when knowlege is gained by the use of these means even the most that can be gained by the unregenerate, this is no means of further grace, and can have no possible influ­ence, as a means or instrument, in renewing and morally chang­ing the heart; but it necessarily acts as a means of increasing the enmity of the heart against God, and making it more like a devil. You, and all in your scheme, had better drop the word grace, and only call them means of increasing such knowlege as is a means of increasing enmity, and making men worse. You tell us you 'hold that the motives,' (i. e. by which God in the gospel urges and draws men to be reconciled to him) ‘are made effectual by a preceeding physical energy, new creating the heart or re­newing the will in order that the motives may have a proper in­fluence,’ p. 113 Before this imagined physical change, in which knowlege or faith has no place as an instrument or means, you say, ‘The clearer the light shines, the more sensibly will the un­renewed sinner's enmity exert itself’ p. 124. I told you in the dialogue that if this is the case, 'tis to no purpose to address men in the apostle's words, We beseech you to be reconciled to God; for, &c. i. e. with a view to persuade them to be reconciled. In your answer you implicitly allow the consequence to be just, and say, the gospel may answer that dreadful purpose mentïoned in Isaiah, Hear ye indeed but understand not, see ye indeed, but perceive not. p. 125. i. e in plain language, it is adapted to make such creatures as unrenewed men are, more wicked and miserable, but not to make them better. Accordingly you reject, with scorn, the tho't of a man's being at all prepared or predisposed to receive the kingdom of God, or to become a new creature, till the mo­ment in which he is made so, by physical power, by any influ­ence of the gospel & Spirit of Christ upon him; but, on the contrary, teach that under the highest illuminations and influences of com­mon grace he remains wholly indisposed to it, and is more at enmity to it than he was in his uninlightened state, p. 114. Do you think, Doctor, Elias was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, and make the people ready to receive him, by blowing up their enmity into a flame? Agreeably to your own doctrine you re­present the most enlightened and earnest seekers of God's special grace, under the highest influences of common grace, as 'devout pharisees;' and intimate that a Mary Magdalen, with all her de­vils in her, or publicans and harlots in the midst of their wick­edness, are as near to the kingdom of God, or as well disposed to receive the renewing influence of the Spirit as these. See your 130th page. The pharisees, Doctor, were distinguished from [Page 53] harlots, and common, open, ignorant sinners in these things, (1) They had more knowlege. (2) Greater enmity to God and his truth. (3) They were more devout in outward shew, and were more hypocritical. And your awakened, inlightened, earnest, reforming seekers of God's mercy and grace, are, according to your doctrines and notion of them, like the pharisees in these re­spects for which reason. I presume, you, after Sandeman, give them the respectful & encouraging title of devout pharisees. If this is their true character, you ought to place them in the rear, behind har­lots, and open sinners, who don't trouble themselves about reli­gion, for they are really worse men, as the old pharisees were, (and so your doctrine says) and to tell them plainly, as our Lord does their predecessors, that publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before them, because they are more easily bro't to repen [...]ance. And when by your teachings and their diligent, earnest endeavors in the use of means, in compliance with your exhortations, you have compleatly formed them devout pharisees, you should say to them. ‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?’ Can you bear the application of your own doctrines?

You say, Doctor, 'tis hazardous for men to neglect the means of grace. 'Tis indeed so: but according to your doctrine, 'tis in one view more hazardous to use than to neglect them. Your doctrines defeat your exhortations, and render them vain and ab­surd. If the people understood them clearly, and believed them fully, they would soon be reduced to abhor the offerings of the Lord, and take up the resolution of the Jewish desperadoes, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die.

You tell us, Doctor, that you 'press people to use the means of grace —because this is the way in which God is pseased to work, and out of which there is no reason to expect he ever will work this blessed change,' regeneration. This is the way: but if your doctrines were true, it could not be so. Have you so corrupted in yourself the right sense of God as to imagine that he puts men upon a course of means and endeavors, which can have no better effect than to make them devout pharisees, and render them two fold more the children of hell than they were before, as an ordinarily necessary preliminary to his regenerating them? Do you think the beauty and moral excellency of God's character shines gloriously in such a method of procedure? I presume you and others have been lead to talk in such an unworthy manner of the way of God with men, as consequentially imputes folly and moral absurdity to him, without reflecting seriously on the ten­dency [Page 54] of your doctrines. I hope you will now reflect, and lay your hand on your mouth.

I only add, that if you write again, I hope you will write with fairness, equity and honor. If in the same spirit as before, you may answer yourself; for you will be wholly unworthy the notice of any one else.—As I have pointed out to you some of your great offences against your brother, I presume you are con­vinced of them: and I now expect you will publicly retract the many false and injurious things you have testified against me, be­fore the churches and world. I expect this as what you owe to me by the will of God; as what you owe to the churches to whom you dedicated your injurious charges; as what you owe to the honor of your own character, which you have sorely wounded while throwing dirt upon me; as what you owe to the honor of the gospel.—If you do this in a christian manner, I will as rea­dily give you the due honor of it as the best friend you have in the world: who am,