never dreamed of. The terms covenant of works, application and appropriation of faith, fupernatural and irrefiftable operation of the Holy Ghoft in converfion, union and communion with Chrift by the implantation, and inbabitation of his bleffed Spirit, inherent grace and holiness, &c. we have reafon to think, are among the terms which the letterwriter would have difcarded, as tending to obfcure and confound the plain truths of the gofpel; though it is evident, that it is not fo much the terms, as the important truths ufually expreffed by them, that he diflikes, and has fuch a strong averfion to. As the author of Theron, &c. and he, therefore, must differ very widely in their fentiments about the propriety and ufe of those terms, when he compliments that author by profeffing to agree with him in this matter, we can hardly commend his ingenuity, or he had no defign to impofe upon his readers. But we fhall find afterwards, that it is no uncommon thing for this author to speak ambiguously, and by his words to intend fomething very different from the fenfe which an innocent reader would be apt to put upon them. It was once my intention to have attend.. ed the author of the letters κατα πόδας*, and to have confidered the contents of each letter by itself; but as it would be a very unpleasant tafk to follow this extraordinary writer through all the mazes of obfcurity, myfticifm, ambiguity and inconfiftency, in which he endeavours to intangle the ignorant and unwary; upon fecond thoughts, I changed my refolution; apprehending it would be more for the benefit of the reader, and lefs trouble to myself, to collect some of the principal heads of his new doctrine into one fummary; which being carefully reviewed and examined, one may easily form a judgment concerning the fcope and tendency of his whole scheme. I have therefore comprised what I take to be the fubftance of what he has advanced in oppofition to what he calls the popular doctrine in a few articles, which, fo far as I have been able to apprehend the meaning of thofe loose reasonings and affertions with which his letters are filled, contain his leading fentiments on the 'moft material articles in debate between him and his antagonists. It muft indeed be acknowledged, that this writer has thrown fuch a mift of ambiguity and obscurity almost upon every subject he treats of, as makes it very difficult to know what are his real fentiments. And as there is fcarce any one particular notion advanced by him which he himself does not contradict in fome part of his letters, and the most of his cavils and fophif fophistical reasonings against the doctrine taught by his opponents might be used with equal, yea far greater advantage against what would appear to be his own fcheme; it may be justly questioned whether he has any fixed principles at all with regard to the feveral points in controverfy between him and thofe whofe doctrine and fentiments he fo ungenerously endeavours to expofe. He is pleafed to charge fome eminent preachers with attempting to obfcure the fimple truth, and conceal their own real fentiments by deceitful circumlocutions and ambiguous modes of expreffion; and tells us, that Proteus could never af fume more shapes, or change them with greater dexterity, than thefe men do, in ""order to evade and oppose the revelation of divine grace *." It is not easy to per ceive any thing in the writings and fermons of those excellent men, who appear to be the chief objects of his refentment, that can give any just ground for fuch accufations; they for the most part bearing visible marks of fincerity and undisguised fimplicity; but perhaps there was never a writer more culpable in all these refpects than himfelf: for he has buried almost every fubject he touches upon in such ambiguity and obfcurity, that Letters on Theron, &c. p. 375. it is often very difficult to know whether his words have this or that meaning, any meaning or no meaning: and, by the help of a little art, they may be so explained as to admit of a fenfe quite oppofite to that which one would take to be their genuine and obvious fignification. And the whole scheme may be turned into almoft as many different fhapes as you pleafe. For though, at first view, it would feem to be laid in oppofition to fome dangerous corruptions of the Chrif tian doctrine, especially concerning juftification through the imputed righteoufnefs, it may be fo explained as to favour either Pe lagianifm or Antinomianifm, Socinianifm or Popery. Yea, one might eafily form a creed out of it containing the fubftance of all the herefies just now mentioned, in fo far as they relate to faith, juftification, regeneration, converfion, fanctification, &c. As to the article of juftification, notwithstanding all his pretended zeal for the purity of the Christian doctrine, it † plainly coincides with the old * *Palamon, who hates orthodoxy both name and thing, loves herefy but hates the name, will probably laugh at the expreffion, and be apt to rank me for ufing it with a fet of men he calls herefy-hunters, whom he bears no good will to; but as I can perceive no impropriety in the term, I have ventured to use it, as many better men than either of us have done before." + Our author's fcheme of principles, if it may be called fo. Popif Popish doctrine on that head, as we hope afterwards to make appear. The many strong things which the letter writer feems to affert concerning the fovereignty of divine grace, and his high pretenfions to zeal for the doctrine of juftification through imputed righteousness, being only calculated to blind and amuse the mind of the reader, will not prove him to be more orthodox than the most bigotted Papifts, with regard to the article of juftification, but fhew that he is lefs ingenuous than they. As the moft zealous advocates for the Popish doctrine on this head ftill taught, that, any certain hope of the forgiveness of fins, or any particular, or perfonal claim to the divine favour or mercy, muft, at least in part, be founded upon, or spring from charity and good works, by which, according to them, faith is informed and perfected; they had more ingenuity and difcretion, than, in direct contradiction to this fentiment, to affirm, that the guilty are justified by faith alone, or that the righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed is the only ground of our accép-tance wirh God. The former of thefe opinions Palamon afferts almoft in as ftrong terms as any of them can do; for he maintains, that any affurance, or perfonal hope of falvation, or even of the favour of God and the remiffion of fins, that believers are pof feffed |