are wholly inexcusable, and altogether criminals, in every neglect. This I affirm to be the truth. And this Mr. M. grants.

2. The question is not, whether the unregenerate do, in any one instance, perform one act of holy obedience, i. e. of obedience which has the least degree of holiness in it. Mr. M. allows they do not: for he asserts, that they are 'totally depraved,' through sect. 2. and 3.

3. The question is not, whether the law is at all abated, as to the unregenerate, so as to cease requiring them to perform every duty in a holy manner. For Mr. M. insists upon it, that the law is not abated.' p. 27. Yea, he asserts, that whatever God commands to be done, he requires the 'performance to be, not in a gracious, but in a perfect manner.' p. 38.

4. The question is not, whether a sinful manner of attending on the means, which God useth for the conversion of sinners, may not be less sinful and less dangerous, than a total neglect. This is granted. And, therefore,

5. The question, and the only question is, whether a sinful manner is not sinful? Or, in other words, whether the sinful manner itself is required? and so is, strictly speaking, a DUTY. In this we differ. And accordingly Mr. M. considers this as a fundamental error in my former piece, p. 35. That God requires holiness, and nothing but holiness.' The argument then stands thus:

To require the unregenerate to perform duties in a sinful manner, is to require them to break God's law. But Mr. M.'s external covenant requires the unregenerate to perform duties in a sinful manner: therefore Mr. M.'s external covenant requires men to break God's law.

That covenant which requires men to break God's law, is not from God. But this external covenant requires men to break God's law: therefore it is not from God ".

If God's law requires holiness, and nothing but holiness, the apostle's words are strictly true. Rom. viii. 7. The totally depraved are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. But as the external covenant is of a nature opposite to the law of God, and suited to the carnal mind, as it requires graceless, unholy, sinful duties; therefore the totally depraved, as such, may be subject to tt.

There are but three ways to get rid of this argument; either, 1. To deny the perfection of the divine law, or, 2. Te deny total depravity, or, 3. To be inconsistent. The church of Scotland, and the churches in New-England, in their public formulas, not choosing to take either of these ways, were necessitated to leave Mr. M.'s external covenant out of their scheme of religion, and to affirm that sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace.' But each of these three ways, to get rid of this argument, and to establish the external covenant, Mr. M. has taken.

For,

1. To this end, (p. 35.) he denies the perfection of the divine law, viz. 'That God requires holiness, and nothing but holiness.' And that,

2. In express contradiction to himself: for, (p. 34.) he says, 'I assert, that whatever God commands to be done, he requires the performance of it to be, not in a gracious, but in a perfect manner.' Which is evidently to require holiness and nothing but holiness.' For a perfect manner of performing every duty, perfectly excludes all sin. And if God requires this perfect manner,' he does, by so doing, forbid the contrary. Every imperfection, therefore, is forbidden. And accordingly, he says, (p. 28.) that the imperfections found in believers are sinful.' Surely then the total depravity found in unbelievers is sinful also; and yet he pleads, (p. 33.) "That if God, consistent with the law of perfection, may require the imperfect obedience of the believer, he may also require such doings, endeavours, and strivings, as take place in sinners, while unregenerate and entirely destitute of holiness." Now, I readily grant, that if God may consistently require the imperfections of believers, which are sinful; he may also require the unregenerate to seek and strive in that sinful manner in which they do. For if he may consistently require sin in the one, he may in the other also. But Mr. M. tells me, that God forbids sin in both; for he says, 'I assert that whatever God commands to be done, he requires the

And so the carnal mind, which is totally opposite to God's law, may be in confor mity to the external covenant; and likewise lays a foundation for love. And therefore the carnal mind naturally loves the external covenant. And what we love, we wish to be true.

"

performance to be, not in a gracious, but in a perfect manner.” Which forbids the imperfections of the believer, and the total sinfulness of the totally depraved.' Inconsistencies of this kind, good as his natural genius is, run through his book, whenever he has occasion to speak on this subject; and he brings many texts of Scripture to keep himself in countenance as if it were possible, that a book inspired by God should contain such inconsistencies. Whereas, could it be proved, that the bible ever required any sin, or any action to be done in a sinful manner, it would be such an argument that it did not come from him, who is perfectly and unchangeably holy, and who does, and who cannot but hate sin, even all sin, at all times, and in all persons, with perfect hatred, that I should not know how to answer it. For it looks like the most glaring contradiction in nature, that God should command, call, invite, urge, persuade, and beseech us to do, what he perfectly bates. And to say, that the true and living God does not perfectly hate all sin, at all times, is, as all will grant, wickedly to reproach the Holy One of Israel. Ps. 1. 21. Thou thoughtest I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set thy sins in order before thee.

The Pharisees took great pains in religion; they fasted twice in the week. And they thought they performed their duties in the manner in which GOD required. All these things have I done from my youth up. Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment. For if the law required them to do duties in the manner in which they did, then, in doing as they did, they did their duty. So they were not sinners, in their own view; rather, they were righteous, and needed no repentance. For they had nothing to repent of. For they had forsaken all known sin, and practised all known duty.' So that their consciences acquitted them. As touching the righteousness of the law, I was blameless. It was impossible they should be brought to repentance, while they viewed things in this light. It was almost impossible to beat them out of their scheme. Therefore publicans and harlots stood a better chance for conversion than they did, as our Saviour

6

declares, Mat. xxi. 31, 32. For aíthough the strivings of an awakened sinner, with the law of perfection in his view, may be useful to promote conviction of sin; yet the strivings of a sinner, with a law in view which requires him to do as he does, instead of being useful to promote conviction of sins,' tends to establish him in his own righteousness. For in doing as he does, he does 'all known duty,' and so is blameless and so is righteous, and so needs no repentance, no atonement, no pardon, no Christ, no grace; and if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. So this scheme issues at last in infidelity.

Our author says, (p. 52.) God has repeatedly commanded sinners to consider their ways:' very true, so he has. But has God ever once commanded them to consider their ways in an impenitent, self-righteous, self-justifying, Christ-rejecting manner? In which manner sinners always do consider their ways, so long as they remain under the reigning power of an impenitent, self-righteous, self-justifying, Christ-rejecting spirit: i. e. so long as they remain unregenerate. For in this spirit unregeneracy consists. But as soon as ever sinners begin to consider their ways in a penitent, self-condemning, God-justifying, Christ-prizing manner, they really begin to comply with the repeated commands to consider their ways,' which God has given to sinners. And these sinners are now not unregenerate, but regenerate. Thus holy David did. Psalm cxix. 56. I thought upon my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. And these are they, (Mat. xi. 12.) who take the kingdom of heaven by force. For the great truth of the Gospels, viewed as such sinners view them, will always be attended with answerable effects. Mat. xiii. 23. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it, which also beareth fruit. But stony and thorny ground hearers bring forth no fruit.

s' But this is, I think, a great mistake,' saith a late writer, they were not Pharisees that these words were spoken to, but Sadducees.' Referring to Mat. xxi. 31. But, it is plain, from ver. 45. that the Pharisees thought themselves to be the men, and that they were not mistaken. For the Evangelist saith, and when the chief Priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Read from ver. 28-45.

While the vail is on the heart, the Gospel produces no fruit, but when the vail is taken away, then divine truths are seen in their GLORY, and then every answerable affection is BEGOTTEN. 2 Cor. iii. 15-18. But every unregenerate sinner is blind to the holy beauty of Christ's holy religion. For as Mr. Stoddard says, ' as man is an enemy to the law of God, so to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.' Therefore, as St. Paul says, 2 Cor. ii. 14. The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither CAN HE KNOW them, because they are spiritually discerned. Therefore Christ told Nicodemus, (John iii.) Except a man be born again he CANNOT SEB the kingdom of God: i. e. cannot understand and embrace Christianity. These, then, are the men who take the kingdom of heaven by force, and not they whom Mr. M. describes, as going about to establish their own righteousness which is of the law,' who, as be rightly observes,' never do accomplish what they aim at.' See P. 54, 55.

But is it not indeed surprising, that Mr. M. should, (p. 52.) urge those words of the apostle, as an exhortation to impenitent, Christ-rejecting strivings, such as are all the strivings of impenitent Christless sinners, in 2 Cor. v. 20. As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God? For the apostle's exhortation is, be ye reconciled to God: and his argument is, God is now ready through Christ to be reconciled to you. Now, supposing this exhortation was given to the unregenerate, as Mr. M. would have it; if they believed that God was ready to be reconciled through Christ: i. e. if they believed the Gospel to be true, why should they not return home to God immediately as the prodigal son did to his father, as soon as ever he came to himself? But Mr. M. would have them, instead of returning to God now, in compliance with the apostle's exhortation, rather put it off a while, and strive to obtain those discoveries of God through Christ, by which they would be reconciled to God.' p. 53. Nay, but the apostle had just made all those discoveries' to them, which are contained in the Gospel on that subject. And adds, behold now is the accepted time! now is the day of salvation! And if