and reason to the word of God:) "How can any man be fit to dwell with God, or to do him service in his kingdom?"

IV. "It is one thing to be born into God's creation, another to be born into his peculiar kingdom. In order to an admittance into his peculiar kingdom, it is not enough for an intelligent being to exist," (p. 250, 251.) I do not know that. Perhaps it is not possible, for God to create an intelligent being, without creating it duly subject to himself, that is, a subject of his peculiar kingdom. It is. highly probable, the holy angels were subjects of his peculiar kingdom, from the first moment of their existence. Therefore the following peremptory assertion, and all of the like kind, are wholly groundless."It is absolutely necessary, before any creature can be a subject of this, that it learn to employ and exercise its powers, suitably to the nature of them." It is not necessary at all. In this sense surely, God may do what he will with his own.' He may bestow his own blessings as he pleases. Is thine because he is good?'

eye evil,

The premises then being gone, what becomes of the conclusion? So that the being born into God's peculiar kingdom, depends upon a right use and application of our life and being: and is the privilege only of those wise men whose spirits attain to an habit of true holiness."

This stands without any proof at all. At best, therefore, it is extremely doubtful. But it must appear extremely absurd to those, who believe God can create spirits, both wise and holy: that he can stamp any creature with what measure of holiness he sees good, at the first moment of its existence.

The occasion of your running into this absurdity seems to be, that you stumbled at the very threshold. In the text under consideration our Lord mentions two things, the new-birth and the kingdom of God. These two your imagi nation blended into one: in consequence of which you run on with "born into his kingdom," (a phrase never used by our Lord, nor any of his apostles), and a heap of other crude expressions of the same kind: all betraying that con

fusedness of thought, which alone could prevent your usual clearness of language.

Just in the same manner you go on. "Our first parents in Paradise were to form their minds to an habitual subjection to the law of God, without which they could not be received into his spiritual kingdom," (p. 252, 253.) This runs upon the same mistaken supposition, that God could not create them holy. Certainly he could and did: and from the very moment that they were created, their minds were in subjection to the law of God, and they were members of his spiritual kingdom.

“But if Adam was originally perfect in holiness," (say, perfectly holy, made in the moral image of God,) "what occasion was there for any farther trial?" That there might be room for farther holiness and happiness; entire holiness does not exclude growth: nor did the right state of all his faculties entitle him to that full reward, which would have followed the right use of them. 9 e

"Upon the whole, regeneration, or gaining habits of holiness, takes in no part of the doctrine of original sin," (p. 254.) But regeneration is not "gaining habits of ho liness:" it is quite a different thing. It is not a natural, but a supernatural change; and is just as different from the gradual "gaining habits," as a child's being born into the world is, from his growing up into a man. The newbirth is not, (as you suppose,) the progress, or the whole of sanctification, but the beginning of it; as the natural birth is not the whole of life, but only the entrance upon it, He that is born of a woman, then begins to live a natural life; he that is born of God, then begins to live a spiritual. And if every man born of a woman had spiritual life already, he would not need to be born of God. "However, I allow the Spirit of God assists our endea vours. But this does not suppose any natural pravity of our minds," (p. 255.) Does not his quickening then sup-pose we were dead 2 His opening our eyes, suppose we, were blind? And his creating us anew, imply something, more than the assisting our endeavours? How very slender

a part in sanctification will you allow to the Spirit of God? You seem very fearful of doing him too much honour, of taking from man the glory due to his name!

Accordingly you say, "His aids are so far from supposing the previous inaptitude of our minds," (to the being born again,) "that our previous desire of the Spirit's assistance, is the condition of our receiving it." But who gave us that desire? Is it not God that worketh in us to will,' to desire, as well as to do?' His grace does accompany and follow our desires: but does it not also prevent, go before them? After this, we may ask and seek farther assistance and if we do, not otherwise, it is given.

:

I cannot but add a few words from Dr. Jennings. (Vind. p. 125.) "Dr. Taylor believes the influence of the Spirit of God to assist our sincere endeavours, is spoken of in the gospel, but never as supposing any natural pravity of our minds. But certain, it is, that Christ opposeth our being. 'born of the Spirit,' to our being born of the flesh: that which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born,

of the Spirit, is spirit,' John iii. 6. Therefore the influence of the Spirit in regeneration, supposeth something that we are born with,, which makes such an influence necessary to, our being born again. And if this be not some natural pravity, let our author tell us what it is. It is plain, it is not any ill habit afterward acquired; for it is something that we are born with. And if to be born of the flesh,' means only to have the parts and powers of a man: and if these parts and powers are all pure and uncorrupted, we have no need of any such influence of the Spirit, to be, super-added to our natural powers. Without this, our own sincere endeavours will suffice, for attaining all habits of virtue."

Y

I proceed to your conclusion, "Is it not highly injurious to the God of our nature, whose hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our nature is originally corrupted?" (p. 256.) It is: but the charge falls not on us, but you. We do not believe "our nature is originally corrupted." It is you who believe this: who believe our nature to be

in the same state, moral and intellectual, as it was originally. Highly injurious indeed is this supposition to the God of our nature. Did he originally give us such a nature as this? So like that of a wild ass's colt?' So stupid, so stubborn, so intractable! So prone to evil! Averse to good! Did his hands form and fashion us thus?' No wiser or better than men at present are? If I believed this, that men were originally what they are now; if you could once convince me of this, I could not go so far as to be a Deist: I'must either be a Manichee, or an Atheist. I must either believe, there was an evil God, or that there was no God at all.

But to disparage our nature is to disparage the work and gifts of God," (p. 257.) True: but to describe the corruption of our nature as it is, is not disparaging the work of God. For that corruption is not his work. On the other hand, to say it is, to say God created us as corrupt as we are now, with as weak an understanding and as perverse a will: this is disparaging the work of God, and God himself to some purpose!

But doth not this doctrine teach you to transfer your wickedness and sin to a wrong cause? Whereas you ought to blame yourself alone, you lay the whole blame upon Adam," (p. 258.) I do not. I know God is willing to save me from all sin, both original and actual. Therefore if I am not saved, I must lay the whole blame upon myself.

"But what good end does this doctrine promote ?" The doctrine, that we are by nature, dead in sin,' and therefore 'children of wrath," promotes repentance, a true knowledge of ourselves, and thereby leads to faith in Christ, to a true knowledge of Christ crucified. And faith worketh' love; and by love, all holiness both of heart and life. Consequently, this doctrine promotes (nay, and is absolutely, indispensably necessary to promote) the whole of that religion which the Son of God lived and died to establish.

"We are told indeed, that it promotes humility. But

neither our Lord, nor his apostles, when inculcating humility, say a word about natural corruption." Supposing (not granting) that they did not, yet it cannot be, in the very nature of the thing, that any whose nature is corrupt should be humble, should know himself, without knowing that corruption.

"But what can be more destructive to virtue, than to represent sin as altogether unavoidable?" (p. 259.) This does not follow from the doctrine. Corrupt as we are, through almighty grace we may avoid all sin.

But it is destructive of virtue. For "if we believe we are by nature worse than the brutes, what wonder if we act worse than brutes?" Yea, if we are so, what wonder if we act so! And this it is absolutely certain men do, whe ther they believe one way or the other. For they who do not believe this, live no better than those that do. ››There-> fore if "the generality of Christians have been the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and treacherous of all mankind,” it is not owing to this belief. But in truth they have not been so ; neither are they at this day. The generality of Christians, so called, are perhaps but little better, yet surely they are no worse, either in tempers or actions, than the rest of mankind. The generality of Jews, yea, of Turks » and Pagans, are full as "lewd, bloody, and treacherous", as they.

You go on, "It is surprising, that Christians" (you mean, those of them who believe original sin) "have lost even a sense of the beneficence of God, in giving them a rational nature," (p. 260.) Nay, surely Christians have lost that rational nature itself, or they retain it to very little purpose, if "the generality of them are the most wicked, lewd, bloody, and treacherous, of all mankind!" They ought "to be humbled," for yielding to those evil propensities, which through the grace of God they may conquer. And they who do conquer, ought to be continually “thanking God," for this and all his benefits.

With great decency you proceed, "Who can believe that to be a revelation from God, which teacheth so absurd a :

2