as to pardon Sin, but neceffary, becaufe it became him to forgive it in that manner, and that only. Nof is that way of remitting Sins any manner of Support of Unrighteoufhefs, or the leaft Privilege to Iniquity; becaufe Obedience to the mo ral Law of Righteoufness, is not fuperfeded, but advanced, nor is there any Pardon by Chrift to any wilful Sinner as long as he continues fuch. Every Chriftian's perfonal Righteousness is a neceffary to join Chrift's Righteoufnefs in doing what he can, as the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is to join his for Tupplying what he cannot, in order to a Fulfilment of the Law, for our Faftification before God That Righteoufnefs of his is therefore by way of Transfer to the diligent Seekers of God, and Followers of the Holy Jefus, called our Righteousness, and to all that Join or use their own beft Endeavours, he is a complete Redeemer; but to thofe who re fufe them; wherefoever difperfed, whether they know Chriff, or whether they never heard of him, he is no Saviour at all. to show at bo dw to It is furprizing that this accute Author fhould actually fuffer his own Scheme to lie under the real Imputation of being a frong Hold for Sin and Satan, whilft he falfly lays it at the Door of Common Chriftianity. He maintains, that" this ! general Pardon, Act of Grace, or Indemnity 2 for all paft Sins, was never intended to be extended farther fconfined to the Sins committed under either the Jewish or the Pagan "State +,) fo as to take in all, or any wilful prefumptuous Sins committed under the Gofpel Difpenfation itfelf, after Men had fworn themselves to Chrift, by Baptifm or publick Profeffion, and thereby engaged themselves "in the Christian Covenant," and this he would endeavour to fupport from Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6, x. 26. both which Places are understood by all the best Interpreters of Apoftacy from the Faith, as well as Practice of Chriftianity. But this difmal, difconfolate, unnatural Syftem of his in allowing, with fome Hereticks of old, no Repentance af ter Baptifm, neceffarily drives Men to Defpair, and that to be fure is not only a Sin, but the ftrong Hold of Sin and Satan: This is a dreadful Blaft of his, not God's Difpleafure against lapfed, compaffionable Human Nature. I have heard from him of Jewish Christianity, and Deiftical Christianity, but this is the moft horrible Chriftianity of all, it is fo cruel and inhuman, and yet it is his own new Chriftianity, fresh wrought out of his own Brains. What must become of frail, unconftant Human Nature at this rate, fincerely beginning its Repentance, and fincerely ftriving against its Sins, the perfect Mastery of which is a Work of Time, and the good Effect of Habit in Virtue, which, by Degrees only, inures to Conftancy in Duty? Is there no return to Duty after a Relapfe, fo incident to fresh Beginners in a virtuous Courfe, nor any Recovery or Hope of Reconciliation after a Prefumptuous Sin? I thought the Hazard of fuch Sins was, not abfolute Defpair, but as the Pfalmift defcribes, left they get the Dominion over me. GROTIUS, Hamond, Stilling fleet, may confequently be in the right, and their Syftem not compacted of Iron and Clay, as he falfly al* ledges, ledges, but feems to have its Parts regularly called, and intimately united together; fince they equally confult (what must be be equally provided for in any true Syftem of Religion) the Honour of God, and the Frailty of Man, and harmonies to both of them, in the moft furprizing Manner: Whilft his new invented one having little or no regard to either, muft appear to the present Generation, and Pofterity, (if it reaches fo far,) the greatest Botch and Bungle, and Difcord within itfelf, and Difcouragement to all who ferve God, that ever was offer'd to the World, because it tends in every Christian Country to overwhelm every Sinner with Despair, instead of recovering him from the Error of his Ways. Are you, Mr. Moral Philofopher, that perfect Man, as to need no Repentance? It does not appear that you are, because you fo little obferve the Decorum, and fo very much. neglect the Characteristick of fucha Perfon in bridling your publick Tongue, your Pen, no better than you do. But what is ftranger, in your Philofopher's Prayer †, there is no afking Pardon for Sin, nor confeffing himself an actual Sinner, but if I should err from the Way of Truth; and though you make him profefs his Dependance upon God, you are ungrateful in fhutting out all Thanksgiving from his Devotions for Mercies received; and it might better have become a moral Philofopher, fo well acquainted with Revelation, and the Origin of Evil (not denied in other Places t,) to have acknowledged the Depravity of Human Nature. more explicitly. So that in lieu of bringing a true Accufation against thofe great Men "that. Page 158. + Page 426. + Page 231, 2. "they they don't think at all," you have bestow'd wretched Self-accufing Pains upon yourself, in giving the World a Demonftration how void of Thought is the Compiler of your Book, and of Truth the Compofition. And what a pitiful inconfiftent Declaration do you draw up against the vanishing and almost vanish'd rigid Calvinists, when at the fame time you acknowledge they are better than their Principles, and are not influenc'd by them in Practice? { 66 3. ANOTHER particular. Reafon why the Death of Chrift, as a propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin, is not a meritorious Caufe is, because it is a moral effective Means of our Salvation and "Recovery" as above cited. A very fhort Anfwer inay fuffice to this, because it will better fall under the Confideration of Means afterwards. I am glad in the mean time that our Author admits the Death of Chrift to be a moral and effectual Means of Salvation, in any Sense. All the Difference betwixt him and me is, which is most effectual, and confequently the most moral Means, his Notion of Example fingly, or the common laudable Opinion, by way of grateful Remembrance, what he has fuffered upon our Account in Propitiation to his and our Father (not in Satisfaction to Himself, as he grofly mifreprefents +) join'd to his Divine Example. The moral Efficacy of this laft I acknowledge; and muft believe it will be confefs'd by others alfo to be as inferior to, and defective of Virtue and moral Efficacy in respect to the other, as a Part is to the Whole.^** *Page 218. † Page 159. 4. A fourth " * 4. A fourth Reafon for our Author's fingu lar Opinion is, "That St. Paul always by "Works, or the Works of the Law, means the "external Ritual, and carnal Inftitutions of the "Mofaick Law, whenever he excludes them "from any Share or Concern in the Bufinefs of "Salvation and Juftification before God,' which supposes, agreeably to his Syftem, that the Works of the Moral Law might be, and are fufficient, of themselves, for Juftification before God. But nothing can well be plainer from. that Apostle's writings (which he pleasantly magnifies in order to nothing else feemingly, but almost every where to contradict his great Patron in Chriftianity with the fuperior Authority of his own greater felf) than that the Gentile is concluded under Sin, as well as the Jew, that one was as much fubject to Condemnation, and guilty of Sin with respect to the Law that he was under, as the other; that neither of them could be counted Right teous before God by the Obfervance of the Law they were respectively fubject to; not the Gentile by the Moral Law; nor yet the Jew by his Ritual Law added to that; and compre hensively as well of the Gentiles as of the Jews, and of the Law of thofe, as much as of these according to the Tenor of his Arguments, and the Defign of his Writings upon that Subject, his Conclufion holds good, that by the Works of the Law no Flesh can be juftified, or in the Words of the Pfalm, in his Sight no Man living. That God is the Juftifier both of the Circumcifion and Uncircumcifion, and by one and Page 406. C 3 the |