"of wrath, or fubjected to divine juftice." If all men, by their own act, have "incurred condemna"tion, and are become the children of wrath," how can it be made appear, that the Almighty is acting cruelly or unjustly to them, if he withholds from any of them fufficient means of falvation? If a King does not afford a condemned rebel an opportunity of obtaining a pardon, is he iniquitous and unjuft? Should a Judge forbear, to put it in the power of a convicted criminal, to efcape the punishment due in law and juftice to his offence, is he called unrighteous, cruel, and tyrannical? By no man of common fenfe or honefty. With what honesty, with what reason, with what modefty, then, can Mr. Phipps, in one place, affert, that all mankind are condemned, and chil dren of wrath, and yet in others, reprefent the Deity as unrighteous, arbitrary, cruel, and infamoufly unjuft, if he does not grant them all the knowledge of the only means of falvation? We would recommend it to him, to be a little more cautious, upon these fubjects, and not expose himself so much, by fuch glaring contradictions.

Had we indeed afferted, that mankind were condemned, and would be punished hereafter, for not doing or believing that which they had no opportunity of knowing, then Mr. Phipps might properly have faid of us, that we fet God in the feat of Satan, and represented him as unrighteoufly fentencing and punishing men, for that which they had not a natural ability of avoiding: But we have afferted the con trary; and agree with him, in this, that all mankind who are capable of moral action, have fo conducted themselves, that they are in a state of condemnation, and are the children of wrath," Eph. ii. 3. or expofed to that punishment, from the fovereign law

* At least those come to years of maturity for moral action.

giver,

giver, which their fins juftly deserve, Muft it there fore follow, that the all-righteous Creator will hereafter judge and punish them, for a neglect of the Gofpel; which many of them never had an opportunity of reading or hearing? Or muft we therefore fay, with Barclay, and his defender, that he is unjust, if he does not fend it them? No furely, this would be making the grace of the Gofpel a debt of equity, not a free gift; and it would be fuppofing, that thofe who are condemned for their guilt, are not juftly condemned.

In my former pamphlet, I had thus expreffed myfelf, " If I ask why God had not given all men a "difpofition, to fubmit to the faving light within them?" Mr. P. replies, P. 99. "It appears to me little lefs than a blafphemous thought, to fuppofe, he does not, at times, difpofe, or in due meafure, fhed, fuch influence upon, the mind of every "man."

σ

On which we obferve, if the mind be difpofed to do a thing, within its natural power, it does it; or if it has a due measure of influence fhed upon it, fo as to difpofe it, it immediately acts accordingly: To fuppofe the contrary, is to imagine, that it does not. act according to its difpofition, inclination, or choice; which is a pofition that deftroys all freedom, and leaves no room in the world for either virtue or vice.

What can the Obfervator mean, by the "difpofing "the mind," but, the inclining or exciting its tendencies and volitions towards an object? If then it be fufficiently difpofed, does it not readily act, according to that difpofition? Will he therefore fay, that all men have the tendencies, volitions, or difpofitions, of their minds, directed to, or terminating upon, the "light within?" If he does, then, according to his own fyftem, and that of the Apologift, it would certainly fave them. In oppofition, however, to this, hear

what

what he fays, P. 93. "But it is much to be feared, દ too many chufe to fhun thefe inward compunctions and heavenly, touches (which the inward principle causes within them) preferring the pursuit of selfish and terreftrial gratifications, and perfifting in their * refufal, till the Spirit of God, feeing it in vain, will no longer ftrive with them." As "too many chufe As" to fhun thefe inward compunctions and heavenly touches" of the Quaker's inward principle, can they be faid to be difpofed, or to be in due measure influenced, to be paffive under, or fubmiffive to, it ? If fo, then we confound the meaning of language, fuppofe a difpofition, and an averfion of the mind, the fame thing, or to fpeak more plainly, fuppofe it to be inclined or difpofed to do, what it does not chufe to do, or to reject that which it chufes; than which, it appears to us, nothing can be more inconfiftent and ebfurd.

We appeal then to the reader, and ask him, whether in the nature of things, or according to the proper fenfe of language, the too many" of mankind which Mr. P. fears, chufe to fhun the inward compunc

tions and heavenly touches" of this inward principle, even at the time it is powerfully operating upon their confciences, can be faid to be "difpofed," or

in due measure influenced" to fubmit to it? I may pledge my reputation upon it, that every unprejudiced man will anfwer the queftion in the negative. Behold then a doctrine, reader, which appears to the celebrated Quaker Mr. Phipps, little lefs than blafphemy, exprefly afferted or moft evidently implied, in his own writings! Here he must fee the fting of his own inyenomed pen, which was, with indignation, darted. upon his opponent, turning upon himself, and deeply wounding his own fyftem.

દ

"Right reafon," fays he, or truth, inherently exifts in God only, and is communicated in his “ Spirit,

Dd

46

Spirit, to thofe of his creation, who are in a capa"city, and are willing to receive it.” P.

7.

99

Here we afk, how come men to be " in a capacity," or "willing to receive it" at firft? Let Mr. Phipps throw off every thing that has the leaft appearance of being Jefuitical, and give a plain honest answer. If he does this, the judicious reader will clearly fee, that his reply must be one of thefe two: either that the light or truth within, through God's fpirit, capacitates or makes him willing; or elfe that the mind itfelf inclines or wills to receive it, without the affiftance of the light, and fo is capacitated of itself. If the former, he gives up Barclay, and turns Calvinist, and muft acknowledge that all men are not thus capacitated to be willing to receive the truth or "light within;" if the latter, then he becomes an Arminian, and makes the efficacy or prevalency of the "light within," to depend upon. a man's own firft unaffifted "willing," that is, voluntary choice and readinefs, to receive it: But this laft anfwer is diametrically oppofite to what he himself has afferted, P. 6. " Our reafon," fays he, "cannot exceed the bounds of carnality, without "fuperior affiftance.”

Again, he fays, P. 8o. "In whom it" (the "light within")" is accepted and obeyed, it operates to falva"tion; and in whom it is continually rejected, to "their condemnation." But let Mr. Phipps come forward, and not conceal himself from the reader, under thefe general affertions. Be the open, artless man, Sir, and now tell us, how a perfon is enabled or difpofed at firft, to "accept and obey it." accept and obey it." I know, you fee yourself caught, if you fhould give any fair and intelligible anfwer; for fhould you fay, the " light with"in" inclines, difpofes, or enables him, then you fee this question ftares you in the face, why does it not enable all men univerfally, to receive and obey it? Or, fhould you fay, he does it of himself without affiftance,

th.n

then you become what the Apologift will not allow you to be. Take which confequence you will, you inuft ftand felf confuted.

Again, P. 86. "What Barclay inculcates is, that "man muft in the firft place, forbear to refift divine

grace in its primary manifeftations to his foul; "which, in that cafe, will perfuafively influence and "difpofe him to join in co-operation with it. Thus "it works the will in man."-I afk, what! a will in man to "forbear, in the first place, to refift it?" Here the point turns. Mr. Phipps, you know it, as well as I, why then prevaricate? Why all this thuffling and evafion? Say, like an honeft man, it does, or it does not; I need not tell you the confequence

either way.

In the last quoted paffage, what Mr. Phipps means, and understands the Apologift to intend, is, that " man "muft in the first place forbear to refift divine grace,' his will, difpofition, or determination to do this, is not "the will which is wrought in man by this grace," but this laft "will" is fomething effected, in confequence of a prior will, or determination of the mind, to be paffive, or " to forbear to resist.”

66

Now, in direct oppofition to this, hear what Mr. Phipps fays, P. 82." Here" (Barclay) " clearly "fhews, that man cannot fet one fingle step towards "his falvation, without the affiftance of the grace of "God, as the first moving, and continual enabling

the

caufe, both of the will and the deed." According to the conftant fenfe of the apology, and the repeated affertions of his defender, men in general, muft first "forbear to refift the light or grace within," or otherwife it will not and cannot fave them. This is "will," or "deed" of the mind, upon which the prevalency of "the light or grace within" abfolutely depends." It faves all," fays Mr. Phipps, P. 79. "who do not refift it, but honeftly embrace its faving Dd z

66 power