of our unguarded hymns and expressions than I was. Now I also see and feel we must all sink, unless we call St. James to our assistance. Yet let us still insist as much, or more than ever, on St. Paul's justification. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. The great Chillingworth saw clearly the danger of separating St. James from St. Paul. He used to wish, that whenever a chapter of St. Paul's justification was read, another of St. James might be read at the same time."

XIII. When my honoured correspondent has endeavoured to prove, by the above-mentioned scriptures, arguments, and quotations, that an impenitent adulterer and murderer, instead of being under God's displeasure, is "a pleasant child still;" to complete his work, he proceeds to show the good that falls into sin do to believers. Never did the pious author of Pietas Oxoniensis employ his pen in a work less conducive to piety!

66

"God," says he, "often brings about his purposes by those very means, which to the human eye would certainly defeat them. He has always the same thing in view, his own glory and the salvation of his elect by Jesus Christ. This Adam was accomplishing when he put the whole world under the curse." Hail, Adam, under the fatal tree! Pluck and eat abundantly, for "thou accomplishest the salvation of the elect!" O the inconsistency of your doctrine! If we insist upon doing the will of God," in order to "enter his kingdom," we are boldly exclaimed against as proudly sharing the glory of our redemption with Christ. But here Adam is represented as his partner in the work of salvation, and a share of his glory positively assigned to the fall, that is, to his disobedience to the Divine will. St. Paul asserts, that "by one man [Adam] came death, and sin the sting of death; and so death [with his sting] passed upon all men." But you inform us, that Adam by his sin "accomplished the salvation of the elect." If this is not plucking a jewel from Christ's crown, to adorn the most improper head in the world, next to that of Satan, I am very much mistaken.

But if God "brought about his purpose" concerning “the salvation of the elect" by the fall of Adam; tell us, I pray, who brought about the purpose concerning the damnation of the reprobates? Had the Lord "always this thing in view" also? On the brink of what a dreadful abyss hath your doctrine brought me? Sir, my mind recoils; I fly from the God whose unprovoked wrath rose before the beginning of the world against millions of his unformed, and therefore guiltless creatures! He that "tasted death for every man" bids me fly! and he points me from Dr. Crisp to God, "whose mercy is over all his works,” till they personally forfeit it by obstinately trampling upon his richest grace.

XIV. As if it was not enough to have represented our salvation in part "accomplished" by the transgression of our first parents, you bring in "Herod and Pontius Pilate," and observe, to the honour of the good which sin does to the elect, that those unrighteous judges did whatsoever God's hand and counsel determined before to be done! If you quote this passage to insinuate that God predetermined their sin, you reflect upon the Divine holiness, and apologize for the murderers of our Lord as you have for the murderer of Uriah.

I grant that when God saw, in the light of his infinite foreknowledge, that Pilate and Caiaphas would absolutely choose injustice and cruelty, he "determined" that they should have the awful opportunity of exercising them against his Anointed. As a skilful pilot, without predetermining, and raising a contrary wind, foresees it will rise, and predetermines so to manage the rudder and sails of his ship, as to make it answer a good purpose; so God overruled the foreseen wickedness of those men, and made it subservient to his merciful justice in offering up the true Paschal Lamb. But, as it would be very absurd to ascribe to the “contrary wind” the praise due to the "pilot's skill;" so it is very unevangelical to ascribe to the sin of Pilate, or of Joseph's brethren, the good which God drew from some of its extraordinary circumstances.

XV. "The Lord has promised to make all things work for good to those that love him; and if all things, then their very sins and corruptions are included in the royal promise." A siren song this! which you unhappily try to support by Scripture. But, (1.) if "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments," how will you prove that David loved God when he left his own wife for that of Uriah? Does not our Lord declare, that those who will not "forsake husband, wife, children, and all things for his sake, are not worthy of him," either as believers or lovers? And are those "worthy of him" who break his commandment, and take their neighbours' wives? Again: if St. John, speaking of one who does not relieve an indigent brother, asks with indignation, "How dwelleth the love of God in him?" May not I, with greater reason, say, "How dwelt the love of God in David?" who, far from assisting Uriah, murdered his soul by drunkenness, and his body with the sword! And if David did not love God, how can you believe that a promise made to "those who love God," respected him in his state of impenitency? (2.) When we extol free grace, and declare, that "God's mercy is over all his works," you directly answer, that the word ALL must be taken in a limited sense: but when you extol the profitableness of sin, all, (" in all things working for good,")` must be taken universally, and include "sin and corruption," contrary to the context. (3.) I say, contrary to the context; for, just before the apostle declares, "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die," ye shall evidence the truth of Ezekiel's doctrine, "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, in his sin that he hath sinned shall he die;" and at the end of the chapter, "the things that work for good" are enumerated, and they include "all tribulations and creatures," but not our own sin, unless you can prove it to be God's creature, and not the devil's production. (4.) It is nowhere promised, that sin shall do us good. On the contrary, God constantly represents it as the greatest evil in the world, the root of all other temporal and eternal evils: and as he makes it the object of his invariable disapprobation, so, till they repent, he levels his severest threatenings at sinners without respect of persons. But the author of Pietas Oxoniensis has made a new discovery. Through the glass of Dr. Crisp, he sees that one of the choicest promises in Scripture respects the commission of sin, of thefts and incest, adultery and murder! So grossly are threatenings and promises, punishments and rewards, confounded together by this fashionable divinity!

(5.) I grant that, in some cases, the punishment inflicted upon a sinner has been overruled for good: but what is this to the sin itself? Is it reasonable to ascribe to sin the good that may spring from the rod with which sin is punished? Some robbers have, perhaps, been brought to repentance by the gallows, and others deterred from committing robbery by the terror of their punishment; but by what rule in logic, or divinity, can we infer from thence, either that any robbers love God, or that all robberies shall work together for their good?

But "Onesimus robbed Philemon his master; and flying from justice, was brought under Paul's preaching and converted." Surely, sir, you do not insinuate that Onesimus' conversion depended upon robbing his master! Or that it would not have been better for him to have served his master faithfully, and stayed in Asia to hear the Gospel with Philemon, than to have rambled to Rome for it in consequence of his crime! The heathens said, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." It will be well if some do not say, upon a fairer prospect than theirs, "Let us steal and rob, for to-morrow we shall be converted."

XVI. You add, that "The royal and holy seed was continued by the incest of Judah with Tamar, and the adultery of David with Bathsheba." And do you really think, sir, God made choice of that line to show how incest and adultery "work together for good?" For my part, I rather think that it was because, if he had chosen any other line, he would have met with more such blots. You know that God slew David's child conceived in adultery; and if he chose Solomon to succeed David, it was not because the adulterous Bathsheba was his mother, but because he was then the best of David's children: for I may say of God's choosing the son, what Samuel said of his choosing the father, "the Lord looketh on the heart," 1 Sam. xvi, 7.

XVII. You proceed in your enumeration of the good that sin does to the pleasant children. "How has many a poor soul, who has been faithless through fear of man, even blessed God for Peter's denial !” Surely, sir, you mistake: none but the fiend, who desired to have Peter "that he might sift him," could bless God for the apostle's crime; nor could any one, on such a horrible account, bless any other God but "the god of this world." David said, " My eyes run down with water, because men keep not thy law;" but the author of Pietas Oxoniensis tells us, that "many a poor soul has blessed God" for the most horrid breaches of his law! Weep no more, perfidious apostle! thou hast "cast the net on the right side of the ship;" thy three curses have procured God multitudes of blessings! Surely, sir, you cannot mean this! " Many a poor soul has blessed God" for granting a pardon to Peter, but never for Peter's denial. It is extremely dangerous thus to confound a crime with the pardon granted to a penitent criminal.

XVIII. Upon the same principle you add, “How have many others been raised out of the mire, by considering the tenderness shown to the incestuous Corinthian !" I am glad you do not say, "by considering the incest of the Corinthian." The good received by many did not then spring from this horrid crime, but from the tenderness of the apostle. This instance, therefore, by your own confession, does not prove that sin does any good to believers.

But as you tell us with what "tenderness" the apostle restored that

man, when he was swallowed up in godly sorrow, you will permit me to remind you of the severity which he showed him while he continued impenitent. "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," said he," when ye are gathered together, deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Hence it appears, the apostle thought his case so desperate, that his body must be solemnly delivered to Satan, in order, if possible, to bring his soul to repentance. Now, if the incestuous man's sins "had been for ever and for ever cancelled;" if he had not forfeited the Divine favour, and cut himself off from "the general assembly of the first born" by his crime; what power could the apostle, who acted under the influence of the Spirit, have had to cut him off from the visible Church as a corrupt member? What right to deliver the body of one of " God's pleasant children” to destruction? Was this "finished salvation?" For my part, as I do not believe in a two-fold, I had almost said Jesuitical, will in God, I am persuaded he would have us consider things as they are; an impenitent adulterer as a profligate heathen ; and a penitent believer as his "pleasant child."

XIX. You add, (1.) A "grievous fall serves to make believers know their place." No, indeed, it serves only to make them forget their place; witness David, who, far from knowing his place, wickedly took that of Uriah; and Eve, who, by falling into the condemnation of the devil, took her Maker's place, in her imagination, and esteemed herself as wise as God. (2.) "It drives them nearer to Christ." Surely, you mistake, sir; you mean nearer the devil: for a fall into pride may drive me nearer Lucifer, a fall into adultery and murder may drive me nearer Belial and Moloch; but not nearer Jesus Christ. (3.) "It makes them more dependent on his strength." No such thing. The genuine effect of a fall into sin, is to stupify the conscience and harden the heart: witness the state of obduracy in which God found Adam, and the state of carnal security in which Nathan found David, after their crimes. (4.) "It keeps them more watchful for the future." Just the reverse it prevents their watching for the future. If David had been made more watchful by falling into adultery, would he have fallen into treachery and murder? If Peter had been made more watchful by his first falling into perjury, would he have fallen three times successively? (5.) "It will cause them to sympathize with others in the like situation." By no means. A fall into sin will naturally make us desirous of drawing another into our guilty condition.. Witness the devil and Eve, Eve and Adam, David and Bathsheba. The royal adulterer was so far from sympathizing with the man who had unkindly taken his neighbour's favourite ewe lamb, that he directly swore, "As the Lord liveth, the man that has done this thing shall surely die."

6. "It will make them sing louder to the praise of restoring grace throughout all the ages of eternity." I demand proof of this. I greatly question whether Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, Hymeneus, Philetus, and many of the fallen believers mentioned in the Epistles of our Lord to the Churches of Asia, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in those of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude, shall sing restoring grace at all. The apostle, far from representing them all as singing louder,

gives us to understand, that many of them shall be "thought worthy of a much sorer punishment" than the sinners consumed by fire from heaven; and that "there remaineth therefore no more sacrifice for their sins;" (a sure proof that Christ's sacrifice availed for them, till they "accounted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing ;") for, adds the apostle, "The Lord will judge his people ;" and, notwithstanding all that Dr. Crisp says to the contrary, "there remaineth [for apostates] a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth," and not "louder songs," await "the unprofitable servant."

But supposing some are "renewed to repentance, and escape out of the snare of the devil;" can you imagine they will be upon the footing of those who, standing "steadfast and immovable, always abounded in the work of the Lord?" Shall then "the labour of these be in vain in the Lord?" Are not our works to follow us? Shall the unprofitable servant, if restored, receive a crown of glory equal to his, who, from the time he listed, has always "fought the good fight, and kept the faith?" The doctrine you would inculcate, at once bears hard upon the equity of the Divine conduct, and strikes a fatal blow at the root of all diligence and faithfulness, so strongly recommended in the oracles of God.

You will be sensible of your error, if you observe, that all the fine things which you tell us of a fall into sin, belong not to the fall, but to a happy recovery from it: and my honoured correspondent is as much mistaken, when he ascribes to sin the effects of repentance and faith, as if he ascribed to a frost the effects of a thaw, or to sickness the consequence of a recovery.

And now that we have seen how you have done a pious man's strange work, permit me, sir, to tell you, that, through the prevalence of human corruption, a word spoken for sin generally goes farther than ten thousand spoken against it. This I know; that if a fall, in an hour of temptation, appears only half so profitable as you represent it, thousands will venture after David into the whirlpool of wickedness. But alas! facilis descensus Averni, &c: it is easier to follow him when he plunges in, than when he struggles out, with his eyes wasted, his flesh dried up, and his bones broken.

XX. I gladly do you the justice, honoured sir, to observe, that you exclaim against sin in the next page; but does not the antidote come too late? You say, "Whatever may be God's secret will, we are to keep close to the declaration of his own written word, which binds us to resist sin." But, alas, you make a bad matter worse, by representing God as having two wills, a secret, effectual will that we should sin, and a revealed will, or written word, commanding us to resist sin! If these insinuations are just, I ask, Why should we not regard God's secret, as much as his revealed will? Nay, why should we not regard it more, since it is the more efficacious, and consequently the stronger will?

You add, "He would be mad who should wilfully fall down, and break a leg or an arm, because he knew there was a skilful surgeon at hand to set it." But I beg leave to dissent from my honoured opponent. For, supposing I had a crooked leg, appointed to be broken for