every thing into an antecedent neceffity, which renders the interfering of the Deity afterwards unneceffary and inconfiftent. You afcribe indeed all things to God: but fuppofe them to be determined, and, if I understand `you right, irrevocably fixed from all eternity. You are pleased to fay farther, that good men in the fcriptures frequently afcribe their good works to God as the proper author of them; the giver of every good and perfect gift: and are the furtheft in the world from having the least idea of their having any merit, or claim upon God in consequence of it: which upon the doctrine of philofophical free-will, they really have. p. 133. You write, Sir, with so much reserve: and your words are fo guarded, that I am not always fure, that I arrive at your true meaning. When you fpeak of philofophical free-will, I prefume you mean free-will abfolute : for I know not of any different forts of free-will; nor of any limitations or degrees. And in respect to what you urge, that men would from hence be entitled to merit, and that they would have a claim upon the Deity, I cannot fee any fuch confequence, that can be derived from it. The cafe has always appeared to me to be this. We have good and evil, life and death, placed I 4 before

before us and we are at full liberty to make our option. Thofe, who make a right ufe of their reason, and who have the fear of God before their eyes, will not fail to make a proper choice. But when this option is made, fuch is the imbecillity of their nature, that they cannot act up to their wishes: they are continually liable to fall away; and ruin their own good purposes. On this account, they are told to look up to heaven, and implore the divine affistance: that if they will but exert themselves and shew themselves zealous of good works, they shall be furthered in all that is good: and what they cannot of themselves effect, fhall be brought to perfection through the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is the whole: and when this is done, they have the fame claim upon the Deity, as a beggar has upon a Prince, who has given him leave to afk; and afterwards granted him his charity.

You are pleafed however to perfist in your opinion, that our wills and inclinations were from the beginning determined: and you have been at great pains to produce inftances from the facred writers to countenance this doctrine. Some of these are from the Apostles and Evangelifts;

gelifts which however appear to me, as I have fhewn, to have nothing to your purpose. And indeed you feem in reality to acknowledge

your

it and though you speak with ufual caution and reserve; yet you afford us too plainly an indication of your real opinion of those writers, to whom you pretended that you had been so much beholden. Your words are very remarkable. Not that I think the facred writers were, ftrictly speaking, Neceffarians; for they were not Philofophers: but their habitual devotion naturally led them to refer all things to God without reflecting on the rigorous meaning of their language; and very probably, had they been interrogated upon the fubject, they would have appeared not to be apprized of the proper extent of the Neceffarian fcheme; and would have answered in a manner unfavourable to it. p. 133. Who must not after this pity the fate of the poor Apoftles and Evangelists? Alas, Sir, how very low muft they be in your estimation! They, who for ages were thought to have been infpired, and to have been peculiarly directed by the Spirit of truth, are at last supposed not to understand their own meaning. They were not, you fay, ftrictly speaking, Neceffarians. No, in good truth, Sir, nor were they in any

respect

respect of that denomination. They were not, you fay, Philofophers. It is true, Sir, they might not understand the doctrine of fixed air: nor had they ever made any discoveries in electricity. To the fquaring of the circle they were probably utterly ftrangers, Yet believe me, Sir, they were great Philofophers, And however you may rate yourself above them, they were far your fuperiors in true knowledge. They were bleft above others with rational philosophy, and likewife with a philosophy, to which reafon could not poffibly arrive; and which could only be obtained from the fountain of all wifdom. This they had in full plenitude and the whole of our religion, and of our happiness in confequence of it, depends upon the teftimony of thefe Apostles, whom you thus vilify and debafe. Such were these lights of the world, thefe preachers of divine truth: who, it seems, if they had been interrogated by Dr. Prieftly, would not have been able to have given him a proper answer,

SEC

S

SECTION XII,

As you have mentioned the philosophical

doctrine of Free-will, fo you here introduce the philofophical doctrine of Neceffity. And this chapter contains an account of the Calvinistic doctrine of Predeftination compared with the philofophical doctrine of Neceffity, Of the former you give an unfavourable reprefentation and fhew the fatal confequences, which refult from this opinion. But after all, your principles are the fame: though you form different conclufions. You are both abfolute Predeftinarians; however you may differ in inference and deduction. It is your opinion, that of mankind all will be faved: Mr, Toplady afferts that many will be faved: the rigid Calvinists, that there will be very few. But this is all furmife; and arifes from the pride of human reafon, which will determine, though there may be no grounds for determination. Thefe notions do not affect the article of Predeftination, which you all maintain alike: though you on your part would fain make a distinction. The Calvinifts, you tell us, differ from you in this: their fyftem intirely

excludes