these terms, I am not conscious of ever having used it as "as a term of reproach." As to calling P. or any other person, an Arminian; I never desire to affix to an honest man a name by which he would not call himself. For my own part, though I never mean to set up any man as a standard of faith; and though, in some things, I think differently from Calvin; yet, as I agree with him in the main, particularly in the leading sentiments advanced in the former treatise, and as it served to avoid unnecessary circumlocution, I have used the term Calvinist, and have no objection to being so called by others. Whether P. is an Arminian, or not, is of very little account with me; it is not very difficult, however, to discern the leading features of his scheme in the works of those who have chosen to be called by that name.

But complaint is farther made of the Arminian divines being misrepresented. (p. 52.) Though I have no better an opinion of Arminius's doctrine of the Spirit's work, as given us by P. (p. 53.) than I had before; and though I believe it would be no difficult matter to prove that the generality of Arminian divines have carried matters farther than Arminius himself did; (as P. seems in part to admit ;)* yet I acknowledge, what I said on that subject, in the passage referred to, was too strong: though, at the time I wrote, I was not aware of it.

To what is said in p. 10. I have no material objection. What I meant was, merely to disown that any sinner was encouraged by the gospel to hope for eternal life, without returning home to God by Jesus Christ. The omission of part

If I am not misinformed, the Remonstrants, in their Apology, maintained, that "that ought not to be commanded which is wrought in us; and cannot be wrought in us which is commanded; that he foolishly commandeth that to be done of others, who will work in them what he commandeth." Cap. 9. p. 105. And to the same purpose Episcopius; "That it is a most absurd thing to affirm, that God either effects by his power, or procureth by his wisdom, that the elect should do those things that he requireth of them." Disp, pri. 8. Thes. 7. These sentiments, if I understand them, amount to the same thing as CESSITY OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD TO ENABLE US The above passages are taken from Dr. Owen's Display of Arminianism, Chap. X.

66

DENYING THE NETO DO OUR DUTY,"

of Isa. Iv. 7. as also the mistake respecting the prayer of the publican, were altogether without design.

There are some remarks which, I think, are made merely for want of considering that those with whom I was in debate were professed Calvinists. Thus, in p. 30, I am corrected for taking for granted that which should have been proved. Had the controversy been with P. or those of his sentiments, the observation had been just; or, had I called any sentiment, which was professedly a subject in debate, a "gospel-doctrine," as P. has done; (p. 38.) perhaps the complaint had been made with greater propriety.

I need not have any dispute with P. concerning the definition of faith: for, though he tells his correspondent that I "do not suppose faith to include in it confidence," yet he knows I, all along, maintain confidence, or trust, to be incumbent on men in general. God ought, no doubt, to be trusted, or confided in, for the fulfilment of whatever he has promised, be that what it may. I acknowledged before, that "faith in Christ, as generally used in the New-Testament, was to be taken in a large sense; as including not only the belief of the truth, but the actual outgoing of the soul towards Christ in a way of dependence upon him." (p. 23.) My views of trust, or confidence, will be seen more fully in the Third Section of this Reply.

By what I said of believing the gospel-report, and of this report extending not only to general truths, but to the partic ular description of their intrinsic nature; I certainly did not mean, as P. has understood me, "that all poor sinners, who are brought to the enjoyment of salvation, must have the very same ideas of whatever God hath reported concerning Christ and his salvation; and this to the very same extent." (p. 17.) My intention was to prove, that a real belief of the gospel-report carried in it a belief of its glory and importance, and so included more than it was frequently supposed to do. Many persons, observing that people would avow the general doctrines of Christianity, and yet live in a course of sin, have hence concluded, that a belief of the gospel was no more than a man might have, and perish everlastingly. It was this opinion that I meant to oppose; and, by proving that a real belief of the gospel is a belief of its intrinsic nature, as well as

of its general truths, I suppose I proved what was there in tended; viz. that it extends farther than the faith of any wick ed man, let him have assorted his notions with ever so much accuracy.

There is a great difference between a want of ideas, through a natural weakness of intellect or lack of opportunity to obtain them, and a positive rejection of what God has revealed. There is an equal difference between a Christian of weak capacity believing the intrinsic excellency of the gospel, and being able to describe it, or even to ascertain all the general truths of Christianity." The weakest Christian believes and lives upon THAT in the gospel, of which a wicked man, whatever be his intellects and advantages, has no idea. We ALL with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. But the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.*

P. allows the necessity of believing the gospel; (p. 16.) and yet seems, afterwards, rather to wish to set this idea aside, and to place the essence of faith in trusting, or confiding, in Christ for salvation. (pp. 17, 18.) But shall we not talk without meaning, if we talk of confiding in Christ without respect had to something testified, or some rule, by which our confidence is to be directed? If we dispense with the truth of God, as the warrant and rule of our confidence, however it may be. come very extensive, and fit professors of opposite ways of thinking, it will be found, at the great day, no better than a building erected upon the sand.

As to the question, "To what degree, or extent, must a poor sinner believe the truth of the gospel?" (p. 16.) it is not for me to answer it. If I were asked, 'To what degree of holiness must a man arrive, in order to see the Lord ?' I should be equally unable to reply. That men have different natural capacities and opportunities, is certainly true; and according to the different degrees of these are their obligations both to receive God's truth, and to exert themselves for his glory. That there is also great contrariety of sentiment, is equally true and how far the mercy of God may extend, through the

* 2 Cor. iii. 18. iv. 4.

death of his Son, in passing over the errours of men's minds, or those of their conduct, is not for me to say; but I think it is our business to maintain a rule for faith, as well as for practice.

But, waiving lesser remarks, the substance of what is advanced may, I think, be reduced to the following heads:Whether regeneration is prior to coming to Christ, as a cause is prior to its effect? Whether moral inability is, or is not, excusable? Whether faith in Christ is required by the moral law? and, Whether an obligation upon all those to whom the gospel is preached to believe in Christ, and the encouragements held out to them to do so, is inconsistent with a limitation of design in his death. On each of these subjects I shall make a few remarks.

SECTION I.

WHETHER REGENERATION IS PRIOR TO OUR COMING TO CHRIST.

THOSE writers, whose sentiments I made free to exam. ine, generally maintain a distinction between the principle and the act of faith. I did not dispute this matter, but admitted it; and, upon those principles, endeavoured to prove the point then in question. P. greatly disapproves of this distinction, and asks "wherein the distinction lies;" and, where the scripture teaches us to make it. (p. 14.) The difference between a principle and an actual exertion was supposed to be illustrable by a principle of honesty being previous to an upright conduct: but P. thinks this will not answer the end, because faith is purely mental; it being with the heart that man believeth. Although this is true, yet I see not how it affects the matter. A principle of honesty is as necessary to a purpose to act uprightly, (which is a mental exertion,) as it is to the action itself.

It is not supposed, however, that there is a distinct princi

ple wrought in the heart, which may be called a principle of faith, in distinction from other graces; but, rather, a new turn, or bias, of mind, previous to all acts or exercises whatsoever, internal or external, which are spiritually good. And if faith is an act of the mind at all; if, especially, it be taken for the soul's coming to Christ, as P. contends; then, unless an evil tree can bring forth good fruit, there must be a new bias of mind previous to such an act. Again, Coming to Christ, if it be a duty, (and P. will allow it is,) must be something pleasing to God; and if this may be done prior to the Spirit of God dwelling in us; then it should seem, notwithstanding what the scripture affirms to the contrary, that they who are in the flesh MAY please God; for every man is in the flesh, till the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.*

One should think, that not only scripture, but a common observation of the workings of our own minds, might teach us the need of a bias of mind different from that which prevails over men in general, in order to come to Christ. Whoever be the cause of such a bias, let that, at present, be out of the question: suppose it is man himself, still a turn of some sort there must be; for it will hardly be said, that the same thoughts, and temper of mind, which lead a man to despise and reject the Saviour, will lead him to esteem and embrace him! That a turn of mind is necessary to our coming to Christ, seems evident, then, from the nature of things; and, if so, our mistake must lie, if any where, in ascribing it to the Spirit of God.

Whether the first beginning of God's work upon the mind consists in giving us a spiritual discernment, whereby spiritu al things, or the importance and glory of divine truth are discerned? or, Whether it consists in a divine energy attending the word itself, causing it to break in, as it were, upon the mind, and bear down every opposition before it? are questions which have each its difficulties. But, whatever difficulties might attend a discussion of these questions, and whatever might be the issue; it would very little, if at all, affect the present controversy. If it is said, It does affect it; for if the first beginning of God's work upon the mind is by the

* Rom. viii. 8, 9.