the various causes or occasions, whence different apprehensions of men about these things may arise: And here we shall find poor frail weak mankind, almost universally born and brought up in prejudices to some party or other, encompassed with a thousand things that tend to influence the judgment, and incline it insensibly toward some particular opinion; so that a whole scheme of doctrines built upon a pure and zealous and laborious search after truth, without any manner of bias or corruption on any side, is scarce to be found in human nature. There is no man alive free from these weaknesses. Happy the mind that has the fewest of them.

“Nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur, optimus ille est
Qui minimis urgetur.”-

-HOR.

It may be these ministers themselves, who differ in opinion, are of very different natural complexions and tempers, and this hath a secret influence in swaying their mind, their studies, their judgment and ministry one way or the other; though all those who agree in natural temper, are not always of the same opinion.

Or it may be, they had an education under teachers and tutors of different sentiments, or have met with books of different principles and opinions, which have made a strong and lasting impression upon their minds, and engaged them betimes into one party, before they had strength of judgment to determine their opinions upon just arguments.

Some persons in order to settle their judgments in these points, have studied more and prayed less, and some have prayed more and studied too little ; and some on both sides have studied hard, and prayed much, and sought earnestly the instructions of the blessed Spirit, and yet have fallen into different ways of thinking in those parts of christianity which are not of necessity to salvation, and have been suffered to follow different forms of speech for wise purposes in the providence of God. Some little accident or occurrence of life, or some sudden start of thought, while the balance of the judgment was in suspense, has perhaps given it a turn to one side or the other, and perhaps determined it for their whole lives.

Some have happened to form their set of doctrines at first more by their own reasoning powers, and drawn their schemes of religion from what they imagine the most natural connection, the necessity or congruity of things, and they call the bible only to their assistance, and seek proper texts to confirm their own system: Others draw the whole scheme of doctrines from a constant and intent application to the holy scripture, and call in reason to their assistance only in order to understand and methodize those doctrines: And though the first way of study in matters

of the christian religion, is by no means to be justified, yet too many have unhappily practised it; and though the latter way is much to be preferred, and most likely to come near the truth, yet it is not followed by all who preach the gospel ; and no wonder then that ministers may differ in their,thoughts.

Such is the weakness of human nature, that as some of us form and build up our first opinions upon very slight and insufficient grounds, and there are many who persist in them, and strongly maintain them without an honest re-examinatión, so others of us change our opinions upon reasons as slight and feeble and insufficient. Some persons having been perplexed with one or two great difficulties in that scheme of sentiments which they have professed, and being unable to grapple with them, have by swift or slow degrees, abandoned that whole scheme, and fell in with another, which perhaps hath equal or greater difficulties in it; never considering that the whole system of christianity, with all its appendices, is so vast, and our view of things is so narrow, and our knowledge so imperfect, that a sharp disputant may push some parts of all our human schemes into great perplexities, even such as human reason can hardly solve; and perhaps God alone knows how to reconcile them, in whose single view all things lie for ever fair and open, perfectly consistent, and are comprehended at once.

Or it may be the way and method of divine grace in the first conversion of the one and the other was very different. Some were wrought upon at first more by legal methods, and the terrors of the law of God, and they find them still to have the greatest and most powerful influence on their consciences; others from their wild wanderings were brought home to Christ by gentle discoveries of divine love in the death of a Saviour: Some, like the jailor; Acts xvi. 26-30. have had their consciences shaken as with an earthquake, they came in trembling and crying out, what must I do to be saved? Others had their hearts softly opened, as was the heart of Lydia, verse 14. of the same chapter, and they received the word of grace and the gospel; and they find the work of God carried on upon their own souls, still by the most evangelical methods. Now a man's own early experiences in the things of religion, will naturally have a great influence on his opinions; and God in his infinite wisdom hath ordered it should be so, that persons of every sort and temper, and humour, young and old, sinners and saints, under every kind of temptation, might meet with some ministers of the gospel, and some sermons and writings to suit their taste, to hit their case, and be the most effectual means of their salvation. The third thing I proposed here was to shew briefly,

III. That as each of these ways of preaching have their ¡everal advantages, so each of them have their special incon

veniences too, if they are perpetually and only insisted on, unless well managed by the extraordinary prudence of the preacher. The one aims most at the glory of divine equity, in rewards and punishments, and contends much for the sincerity of God in all his transactions with men: The other seems to look most at honouring the sovereignty, the riches and freedom of divine grace, and God's infinite condescension and compassion to sinful

creatures.

One seems to lead christians more to a strict scrupulosity in every action, in order to make up the undoubted evidences of a gospel-perfection, which they call sincerity, and thereby to raise their hopes of escaping hell and obtaining heaven; it drives the soul to duties, and maintains a trembling watchfulness; but is in danger of governing it by a spirit of bondage, and of keeping our faith and comfort very low. The other leads to equal holiness, or perhaps to higher degrees of it by the delightful constraints of a filial love, by the sweet influences of divine consolation; but there may be some danger of encouraging negligence and presumption, and that not only in sinners, but even sometimes in believers themselves, if not wisely managed and guarded.

Upon this subject I might here give my pen into the hand of some sprightly advocate of each party, and have forty more pages written for me speedily, without any thought or labour of mine; this would swell my essay up finely, and enlarge it to a volume, with many a name of arminian and antinomian dealt about freely on the opposite opinions: For the supposed advantages and disadvantages on both sides, are frequently mentioned as arguments of each party against the other; but I shall not think necessary to insist longer on them here for that very reason: And though these sort of moral arguments, drawn from the design and tendency of things, may be justly used on both sides, and on both sides have some degree of truth and force in them, yet both may not have equal force: Nor do I think it inconsistent with my design in this reconciling discoursé, to declare my own sentiments: "For a man may be very happy in making peace between two quarrelling neighbours, though he is well. persuaded that one hath the better side of the cause, and in a friendly manner expresseth it too."

I will not be ashamed then to declare, that in my opinion, one method of preaching the gospel hath greater advantages in it, and fewer inconveniences than the other; supposing still that we guard against extremes: That one seems more connatural to the genius of the gospel, as it is distinct from a covenant of works, and seems to suit better with the glorious designs of divine grace. My own experience in the things of religion, my observations of some others, and my diligent search of the holy scriptures, I hope not without divine aid, hath led my thoughts rather to favour and practice the more evangeli

cal method of preaching most frequently: But another person who follows a different way may tell me, he came by his turn of thoughts the same way as I did by mine and my charity demands that I believe it. Yet while both sides maintain those great truths, wherein I mentioned the general agreement of our protestant confessions of faith, I cannot conceive that either of them can lead sinners astray from salvation, and that is the fourth proposal I made, viz.

IV. To shew the real safety of each of these methods in ministering the gospel both to saints and sinners, and that is evident, because they agree in the most necessary and essential parts of it. Both of them preach grace and duty, justification by Christ, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and teach men all that is of necessity to be believed and practised in order to salvation.

If two men sitting under a different ministry are brought sincerely to repent of all sin, and to love God with all their heart, can I imagine that one shall be damned, because he tells me he repents in obedience to the commands of the gospel? Or the other, because he doth it in obedience to the moral law in the hand of Christ, supposing the pure gospel to have no command in it? If two sinners are persuaded to accept of Christ Jesus for their Lord and Saviour, can I ever believe that God will condemn one of them, because he first resolved to obey Christ as his Lord, and thereby took encouragement to trust him as a Saviour? Or that God will punish the other for ever, because he first trusted in Christ as a Saviour, and thereby found his will sweetly inclined to submit to him as his Lord? Where all duties required in the gospel are sincerely performed, can I ever be persuaded men shall be ever sent to hell, merely because they do not agree about the logical relations that these duties have one to another, or to their salvation, while both agree to lay the Lord Jesus Christ, and his righteousness, or his obedience and death, as the only foundation of all their hopes?

If either of these ways of preaching the gospel, were so contrary to scripture, and such abominable and pernicious errors in the sight of God, as angry and quarrelling men of both sides represent them, I cannot persuade myself that God would so far have favoured both, in these instances following, viz.

I. If either of these ways of preaching were so criminal and dangerous as some have supposed, I cannot think the Spirit of God would have used those expressions in scripture, which sometimes seem to represent the covenant of grace in one form, and sometimes in another: nor that he would have suffered the penmen of his holy word to have given occasion so such different sentiments on this subject among his favourites, his holy worshippers, and those who have sought his directions and his grace with much importunity and perseverance.

II. If either of these ways of preaching were so dangerous as some have imagined, I cannot believe that the blessed God would ever have attended both these ways of preaching with his blessing, so far as to convert great numbers of sinners by them, and edify his saints; but it is sufficiently evident that ministers of very different apprehensions in these points have been owned and blessed of God to the conversion, comfort and salvation of many souls.

III. If either of these representations of the gospel were so very dangerous, I cannot imagine, that persons of good understanding, of deep learning, of large knowledge and religion, of long experience, and of great holiness, should maintain their opinions in these things so very different to their lives' end, if their salvation were in such extreme hazard thereby, however in the infancy of their christianity they might have received and embraced these different apprehensions. Surely if these points had been of so dreadful and dangerous importance on either side, God would have granted a greater union in sentiment to so great a number of his children, who laboured in sincere enquiry after truth, constant and fervent prayer for the teaching of the blessed Spirit, and were truly zealous for his honour. Divine goodness surely would not have suffered such multitudes of holy souls, on either side, to continue always in mistakes of so terrible consequence, as some disputers have represented them.

SECT. V.-Advices or Requests.

May I be permitted at the end of this discourse to drop a word or two of general advice, or rather of humble request to all, but especially to my younger brethren in the ministry.

I. "Pay a constant and sacred reverence to the language of scripture," and let it appear in these following instances:

1. Let the forms of speech that are used in those scriptures where the doctrines of the gospel are expressly laid down and proved, be the speech which you commonly teach those doctrines; and let the language wherein warm and pathetical exhortations are given in scripture, be the language which you generally imitate in your affectionate addresses, to the consciences of saints and sinners; the one as well as the other are given for our example. Whereas if we should preach and explain the deepest truths in all the affectionate forms and flourishes of speech and metaphor, it is the way to lead the judgments of hearers astray; but while we submit ourselves to the words which the Holy Spirit useth as our pattern, both in teaching, and also in exhorting, we may humbly expect his inward teaching to enlighten our own understandings, and make our labours in the gospel powerful to the salvation of them that hear us

2. Let those words which are not used in scripture never be zealously maintained and insisted on as necessary to salva