and fear me, and keep ALL my commandments always! And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in ALL his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart, and with ALL thy soul?-Be ye therefore PERFECT, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.* If God's law continues to be an "invariable rule of human conduct, and infallible test of right and wrong," as P. says it does, then either there is a gracious provision made for perfection in the present state, or God requires and exhorts men to that for which no such provision is made.

VI. If I am not misinformed, P. allows of the certain perseverance of all true believers. He allows, I suppose, that God has determined their perseverance, and has made gracious and effectual provision for it. He will not say so of hypocrites. God has not determined that they shall continue in his word, hold out to the end, and finish their course with joy. Nevertheless, the scriptures address all professors alike, with cautions and warnings, promises and threatenings; as if there were no decree, nor any certainty in the matter, about one or the other. Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, on the one hand are exhorted to fear, lest a promise being left them of entering into rest, any of them should seem to come short of it, and are warned, from the example of the unbelieving Israelites, to labour to enter into rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. The disciples of Christ were charged, upon pain of eternal damnation, if their right hand or right eye caused them to offend, to cut it off, or pluck it out. Whatever some may think of it, there would be no contradiction in saying to the best Christian in the world, If you deny Christ, he will deny you!' Such as proved to be mere professors, on the other hand, were addressed by Christ in this manner; If ye CONTINUE in my word, then shall ye be my disciples indeed; and, when any such turned back, and walked no more with him, though no such provision was made for their perseverance as is made for

* Deut. v. 29. x 12.

† Heb. iii. 1. iv. 1. 11.

Matt. v. 48.

Matt. xviii. 8, 9. x. 33. 2 Tim. ii. 12.

John viii. 31.

true believers, yet their falling away was always considered as their sin. Judas, and Demas, and many others, fell under the divine displeasure for their apostacy.

I confess, these things may look like contradictions. They are, doubtless, profound subjects; and, perhaps, as some have expressed it, we shall never be fully able, in the present state, to explain the link that unites the appointments of God with the free actions of men: but such a link there is: the fact is revealed abundantly in scripture; and it does not distress me, if, in this matter, I have, all my life, to walk by faith, and not by sight.

From the above cases I conclude, that, however difficult it may appear to us, it is proper for God to exhort and invite men to duties with which he has not determined to give them a moral ability, or an heart, to comply; and for which compliance he has inade no effectual provision by the death of his Son and, if it is so in these cases, I farther conclude, it may be so in the case in hand.

Two remarks shall conclude this part of the subject:

1. Whether P. will allow of some of the foregoing grounds, as proper data, may be doubted. I could have been glad to have reasoned with him wholly upon his own principles; but, where that cannot be, it is right and just to make the word of God our ground. If he can overthrow the doctrine supposed to be maintained in these scriptures, it is allowed, that, in so doing, he will overthrow that which is built upon them; but not otherwise. In the last two arguments, however, I have the happiness to reason from principles which, I suppose, P. will allow.

2. Whether the foregoing reasoning will convince P. and those of his principles, or not, it may have some weight with considerate Calvinists. They must either give up the doctrine of predetermination, or, on this account, deny that men are obliged to act differently from what they do; that Pharaoh and Sihon, for instance, were obliged to comply with the messages of peace which were sent them; or else, if they will maintain both these, they must allow them to be consistent with each other; and, if divine decrees and free agency are consistent in some instances, it becomes them to give some solid reason why they should not be so in others.

§ 4. GENERAL REFLECTIONS.

I am not insensibie that the cause I have been pleading is such as may grate with the feelings of some of my readers. It may seem as if I were disputing with PHILANTHROPY itself. To such readers I would recommend a few additional considerations:

I. The same objection would lie against me, if I had been opposing the notion of universal salvation; and yet it would not follow from thence, that I must be in the wrong. The feelings of guilty creatures, in matters wherein they themselves are so deeply interested, are but poor criterions of truth and

errour.

II. There is no difference between us respecting the number or character of those that shall be finally saved. We agree, that whoever returns to God by Jesus Christ shall certainly be saved; that in every nation they that fear God, and work righteousness, are accepted. What difference there is respects the efficacy of Christ's death, and the causes of salvation.

III. Even in point of provision, I see not wherein the scheme of P. has the advantage of that which he opposes. The provision made by the death of Christ is of two kinds : 1. A provision of pardon and acceptance for all believers; 2. A provision of grace to enable a sinner to believe. The first affords a motive for returning to God in Christ's name: the last excites to a compliance with that motive. Now, in which of these has the scheme of P. any advantage of that which he opposes? Not in the first: we suppose the provisions of Christ's death altogether sufficient for the fulfilment of his promises, be they as extensive as they may; that full and free pardon is provided for all that believe in him; and that, if all the inhabitants of the globe could be persuaded to return to God in Christ's name, they would undoubtedly be accepted of him. Does the scheme of P. propose any more? No it pretends to no such thing as a provision for unbelievers being forgiven and accepted. Thus far, at least, therefore, we stand upon equal ground.

But has not P. the advantage in the last particular? does not his scheme boast of a universal provision of grace, suffi

cient to enable every man to comply with the gospel? Yes, it does; but what it amounts to is difficult to say. Does it effectually produce, in mankind in general, any thing of a right spirit; any thing of a true desire to come to Christ for the salvation of their souls? No such thing, that I know of, is pretended. At most, it only amounts to this, that God is ready to help them out of their condition, if they will but ask him; and to give them every assistance in the good work, if they will but be in earnest, and set about it. Well: if this is the whole of which P. can boast, I see nothing superior, in this either, to the sentiment he opposes. We consider the least degree of a right spirit as plentifully encouraged in the word of God. If a person do but truly desire to come to Christ, or desire the influence of the Holy Spirit to that end, we doubt not but grace is provided for his assistance. God will surely give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him.* Where, then, is the superiority of his system? It makes no effectual provision for begetting a right disposition in those who are so utterly destitute of it that they will not seek after it. It only encourages the well disposed; and, as to these, if their welldisposedness is real, there is no want of encouragement for them in the system he opposes.

4. Whether the scheme of P. has any advantage of that which he opposes, in one respect, or not, it certainly has a disadvantage in another. By it, the redemption and salvation of the whole human race is left to uncertainty; to such uncertainty, as to depend upon the fickle, capricious, and perverse will of man. It supposes no effectual provision made for Christ to see of the travail of his soul, in the salvation of sinners. P. has a very great objection to a sinner's coming to Christ with a peradventure; (p. 33.) but, it seems, he has no objection to his Lord and Saviour coming into the world, and laying down his life with no better security. Notwithstanding any provision made by his scheme, the Head of the church might have been without a single member, the King of Zion without a subject, and the Shepherd of Israel without any to constitute a flock. Satan might have triumphed for ever,

* Luke xi. 13.

and the many mansions in glory have remained eternally unoccupied by the children of men !*

5. Do we maintain that Christ, in his death, designed the salvation of those, and only those, who are finally saved? the same follows from our opponents' own principles. They will admit that Christ had a certain foreknowledge of all those who would, and who would not, believe in him: but did ever an intelligent being design that which he knew would never come to pass ?

6. The scheme of P. though it professedly maintains that Christ died to atone for the sins of all mankind; yet, in reality, amounts to no such thing. The sin of mankind may be distinguished into two kinds: that which is committed simply against God as a lawgiver, antecedently to all considerations of the gift of Christ, and the grace of the gospel; and that which is committed more immediately against the gospel, despising the riches of God's goodness, and rejecting his way of salvation. Now, does P. maintain that Christ made atonement for both these? I believe not: on the contrary, his scheme supposes that he atoned for neither: not for the first; for he abundantly insists that there could be nothing of the nature of blameworthiness in this, and, consequently, nothing to require an atonement-not for the last; for, if so, atonement must be made for impenitency and unbelief; and, in

* P. observes, on Heb ii 9. that "it is undoubtedly a greater instance of the grace of God that Jesus Christ should die for all, than only for a part of mankind;" and this he thinks "an argument of no little force in favour of his sense of the passage." (p. 80.) It is true, if Christ had made effectual provision for the salvation of all, it would have been a greater display of grace than making such a provision for only a part;f but God has other perfections to display, as well as his grace; and the reader will perceive, by what has been said, that to make provision for all, in the sense in which P. contends for it, is so far from magnifying the grace of God, that it enervates, if not annihilates it. Where is the grace of taking mankind from a condition in which they would have been for ever blameless, and putting them into a situation in which, at best, their happiness was uncertain, their guilt certain, and their everlasting ruin very probable?

R.

+ Yet would grace have appeared so evident, if no one of our race had suffered the penalty of the law? Would every surmise have been precluded, that its infliction would have been too great a stretch of severity? Would it have been equally clear, that either the removal of guilt, or that the conquest of depravity, was solely of grace?