reach of his natural faculties, we allow, that the Almighty has given all his rational creatures this power: But, if he means that God has granted to all mankind, a moral power, or turn of mind, to be pleased with that courfe of choice and action, which would terminate in their everlasting falvation, without having the leaft fufpicion of our infulting "Omnipotency," or impcaching divine "goodness," we, with the fulleft conviction of mind, deny his pofition; having Scripture, experience, and fact, to fupport our negation.

Mr. Phipps writes upon this point, with fuch a confidential air, as evidently befpeaks a full perfuafion that he is entirely mafter of it; and though we would not return his compliments, by calling in queftion his fenfe and capacity, as he very frequently has done, with rude language, his opponent's, we much fufpect that he has not fufficiently investigated the fubject: If he had, common sense, and his own feelings, would convince him, that though man is free to do what he pleafes or chufes, within the fphere of his natural ability, it is morally impoffible he fhould perform that, which he has no difpofition, inclination, or choice, to do.

There is no occafion for us to enlarge further upon Mr. Phipps's obfervations. Thefe remarks abundantly prove, that he does not attend properly to the ftrength of his own expreffions, and that he intirely mistakes, in fome inftances, thofe of his opponent; and he is fo far from clearing the fyftem of the Apologift, of thofe confequences which we charged upon it, that his own obfervations demonftrate, as we have fhewn, that his own scheme is certainly clogged with the fame. Whether then it is becoming, decent, gentleman-like, much less religious, for a man of Mr. Phipps's years and experience, to treat his opponent with that haughty air of fuperiority and infulting contempt, which runs through the whole of his performance,

Ee

formance, we leave to the judgment of every impar tial reader.

2. It is clearly fhewn, that Mr. Barclay's notions unavoidably lead to what he calls the horrid doctrine of reprobation, or preterition.

We would here lay before the reader the following paragraph from the Apology, Prop. X. Sect. 5. "For "the Apoftate Church of Rome has introduced no "lefs ceremonies and fuperftitions in the Chriftian "profeffion, than was either among Jews or Hea

thens; and that there is, and hath been as much, "yea, and more pride, covetoufnefs, unclean luft, "luxury, fornication, profanity, and atheism, among "her teachers and chief bifhops, than ever was "among any fort of people, none need doubt that "have read their own authors; to wit, Platina, and "others." In the next page, he expreffes himself thus: "And look through the Proteftant nations, "and there fhall no difference appear in the lives of "the generality of the one, more than of the other; but, he who ruleth in the children of difobedience, reigning in both: So that the reformation, through "this defect, is but in holding fome lefs grofs errors in the notion, but not in having the heart reformed "and renewed; in which mainly the life of Christi"anity confifteth."

I do not queftion but Mr. Barclay wrote this, in the honesty and fimplicity of his heart; and however charitable he may affect to be in many places, yet, that here he judged it would have been difhonefty to have allowed, that the generality, or by far the greater part, of Proteftants and Papifts, were changed in heart, and reformed in life, and, in his fente, true Chriftians. If now he gives his vote against the major part of the nations called Chriftian, and even against the greatest part of Proteftants, it is natural

for

for us to fuppofe, he does alfo, against the Jews, Turks, and Pagans, though he might have allowed, and did allow, that fome amongst all thefe, may have been in a fafe ftate through the prevalency of the "light within:" For indeed, it would be ftrange to fuppofe, that the most holy writings, or genuine Revelation of God, fhould be in the hands of a people, who were not more benefitted by it, with respect to the interefts of their fouls, than those who did not enjoy fo ineftimable a privilege.

The fum then of thefe obfervations amounts to this, that the greater part of the Pagans, Turks, Jews, and profeffed Chriftians, by Mr. Barclay's own conceffions, as they have not fubmitted to the "light "within," are not in a safe state; and, if they die in this condition, must be for ever loft.

That most of them did die in these circumftances, we have no manner of doubt, was the opinion of the Apologift, notwithstanding Mr. Phipps has endeavoured, P. $5. to give his reflections another meaning But to render entirely useless his obfervations, and ftate the matter in a moft unexceptionable light, that will leave no room for his evafions, we will quote Barclay's own words, to prove as much as we want for our intended deductions. He expreffes himself thus, Prop. II. "For, as to the firft, it is acknowledged that many learned men may be, and have "been, damned." P. 26. Mr. Phipps himself also, in a paffage quoted in the former number, fays, "That it is to be feared too many will perfift in neg"lecting to attend to the "light within," till fo hardened in iniquity, they fall into perdition."

66

I ask then, how it comes to pafs that thefe, whatever their number may be, are loft? Mr. Barclay, and his defender, would reply, "Because they did not

hearken to the Light within, nor fuffer it to operate upon their fouls." True, this is the judicial reafon of their condemnation; but I cannot ftop here in Ee 2 the

the inquiries of my mind; therefore I ask again, How comes it about, that fome are paffive, and fuffer the light to operate, but that too many of the learned, as well as unlearned, are not fo, and reject its falutary influence? It must be owing to the light itfelf; or to the difpofition and quality of the perfon; or else to no moral caufe whatsoever. If it be owing to no moral caufe, that any become paffive under it, then it is a matter of mere abfolute contingency, in which the Deity, his providence, word, and works, or any thing within or without thefe perfons, have no manner of influence. And if it be owing to no moral cause, that "too many" reject it, the Devil and his agents,. or the perfon's own mind, have no way conduced to the refufal of the gracious aids of this light, either directly or indirectly. The confequence of which would establish the Epicurean and blind fatal scheme at once, that fuppofes the falvation of an immortal foul does' not ultimately depend upon God, or the quality of the perfon's own mind; nor its perdition upon the Devil, and its own difpofition to fubmit to his pernicious influence.

It must be either owing to the light itself, or to the difpofition or quality of the mind, that fome of mankind are paffive and fuffer it to fave them, and that "too many" are not paffive and oppofe it: This is a propofition as clear as any one can be. If Mr. Phipps will deny it, he must take the confequence. The Apologift will not fuffer the honour of "the first step "of the foul" towards falvation to be afcribed to the "light or grace within," for he repeatedly fays, that all men have a fufficiency of this, or a faving meafure of it, even thofe that are loft, as well as thote that are faved. He tells us alfo, the reafon it does not fave them that are loft is, because they were not paffive, or because they did no: íubmit themfelves to its influence, or in other words, because they refifted it; His defen

der,

der, in many places, however he has expreffed himfelf elsewhere, is evidently of the fame opinion.

Now, we have brought the matter to a point, and the next queftion to be afked is, how came fuch a number of mankind to be fo badly difpofed, as not to fubmit to the fpirit of God within them, or fuffer his light within to fave them, but others, on the contrary, chufe to fubinit to its dictates? It must be owing to fome difference in their natures or education. Who was it then that had the formation or conftitution of their natures, or the fuperintendency or direction of their education, but God and his providence? And could he not, if it had been his good pleasure or will, have fo conftituted their natures, and ordered their education, that they fhould all univerfally have fubmitted to the light within, and been faved? No man can, with any reafon or piety, deny it. Here then what Barclay calls the "horrid doctrine of predeftina"tion," and Mr. Phipps's " Barbarifm of reproba"tion," force themselves upon my mind, with invincible evidence.

If it be afked, why God has not given all men a difpofition to fubmit to the faving light within them, or ordered their education fo that they might have been thus difpofed? I cannot fay, that he could not have done it, nor can Meffrs. Barclay or Phipps: We have no other anfwer but this, that it is "because he "will fhew inercy, on whom he will fhew mercy.' Rom. ix. 15.

Turn the fubject which way we will, it will terminate here for if we fuppofe, this bad difpofition comes from Adam, the Devil, bad example, or a contingent principle in the minds of men, it does not remove the difficulty; or if we attribute the good or well difpofed mind to any caufe, it must ultimately iflue in God, for, as Mr. Phipps fays, "he is the "author of all good."

It