**V% 
 
 
 
/ X 3 
 
 \ 
 
 
nsx, 
 
 
 jt'* 
 
 ^fk/kr^ f 
 
 \^^*- ■ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://archive.org/details/candidexaminatioOOwalk 
 

 
 CANDID EXAMINATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hut chi fori s jinimadverfions : 
 
 jfffl: WHEREIN jUe/iJL 
 
 His Objections^ Covenanting are Anfwered? 
 
 H I S 
 
 Groundless Charges Repelled; 
 
 AND 
 
 His Erroneous Doctrines Refuted. 
 
 * BY 
 
 DAVID WALKER^ 
 
 Minifter of the Gofpel in Pollockshaws. 
 
 Glory not, and lie not againjl the truib* 
 James iii. 14. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 Printed by W. S m i t h, for the Au T ho r : 
 
 Sold by W. Smith, Glafgow ; W. Gray and R. Inglis, 
 Edinburgh; W.Andfrsom, Stirling; and P. Mair, Falkirk. 
 
 MDCCLXXXII. 
 
I 
 
C s 3 
 
 «*--*• •*--*• «*--*■ «*--*• <*--*• <*"*• «*--*• «*--*•■ «*-*••*► 
 «*--*• «*-*» **-*• •*--*• •*--*• >*--*• «$-■*• •*--*> "*■-*►•*» 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 R 
 
 A D 
 
 R 
 
 IT is not improbable, that fome may afk, If an 
 anfwer to Mr. Hutchifon was intended, why 
 was it fo long deferred ? The anfwer is obvious : 
 It was on the very eve of the fummer facraments 
 before his performance made its appearance ; and 
 during that feafon, I can apply to nothing, except 
 my ordinary office-work, being fometimes three or 
 four Sabbaths running employed at facramental oc- 
 cafions. Befides, my opponent's allegation, that I 
 am not very much cut out for publifhing, is juft ; 
 and of confequence muft have longer time, than thefe 
 who can write witheafe. 
 
 My opponent reprobates my ftile exceedingly, 
 reprefents me again and again, as entirely deftitutc 
 of capacity for writing, and not obfcurely infinuates, 
 that he is poffefled of talents not to be met with 
 every day. Let the reader take all this for granted. 
 Accordingly a difpute is managed, on one fide by 
 the firft author of the age ; on the other, by one 
 deftitute of every qualification for the talk : and if 
 I anfwer every one of his arguments with eafe, I 
 
 A 2 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 ^^^^^^^^^•S^-J^-ffc^-f^-f^-i* 
 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Sect. I. Mr. Hutchi/bn's Objeclions to my Sermon on Cove* 
 nanting examined, Page 9 
 
 Sect. II. Mr. Hutchi/bn's further Ob/ervations con/tdered, 19 
 
 Sect. III. Mr. Hutc hi fan's. Arguments again/} the Obligation of 
 Public Vows on poflerity examined, 2 8 
 
 StcT. IV. Mr. Hutchifon's Arguments for the prefent Perform- 
 ance of Covenanting confldered, 43 
 
 Ssct. V. Mr. Hutchi forts Arguments againfl Covenanting 
 corjidered, 50 
 
 Sect. VI. Mr. Hutchifon's Sentiments on Covenanting, by a 
 Solemn Vow, con/idered ; and his Charge of Bloody Prin- 
 ciples repelled, 93 
 
 Sect. VII. Mr. Hutchifon's Defence of Relief Doctrines exa- 
 mined, 106 
 
 Sect. VIII. Mr. Hutchiforis Charge of grofs Error ccnfi- 
 dered, 137 
 
 Sect. IX. The Relief Scheme dive/led of thefe things which 
 are none of its Peculiarities, I 70 
 
I 9 ) 
 
 T**"*> «*--*► «*-*► «J"*> «*-*-*► «*»*► <*--& «*"» -*> V 
 
 CANDID EXAMINATION. 
 
 SECT. 
 
 r. 
 
 Afir. HutcLiforfs Objections /g wy Sermon on Covenanting, 
 Examined. 
 
 WHEN a man is engaged in controverfy, and finds 
 himfelf unable to anfwer, if pride and party attach- 
 ments reflrain him from retracting ; he is under a difagreeable 
 neceflity of inventing fome plaufible pretext, for evading where 
 he cannot reply. This is evidently the cafe with my opponent; 
 but he is never at a lofs, whatever he is unable to anfwer, it 
 is dull, nervlefs, prolix, unworthy of his labour, or the atten- 
 tion of mankind. — I endeavoured to write in the mod plain 
 and ^mple manner, that I might be well underftood by peifons 
 of the meaneft capacity; leaving flourishes and embellishments 
 to thefe who doat upon founds, at the expence of murdering 
 common fenfe. 
 
 My friend cao fcarcely find words ilrong enough to exprefs 
 his diflike of this, and for a very plain reafon • the weaknefs 
 of his arguments is fo evidently expofed, as to be quite obvious 
 to perfons of the weakeft intellectuals. At this he frets ex- 
 ceedingly, expiefling the molt lupercilious contempt As the 
 
 defign of argument is not melody to the ear, but information, 
 to the judgment, I mean toperfevere; and, in the plaineft 
 manner, expofe the fallacy • .his realoning ; and will probably be 
 a worfe writer now than formerly. — There is little or nothing 
 new in his performance, only a ftale repetition of former un- 
 
 B 
 
( to ) 
 
 fupported afTertions ; but as fome of them are a little new- 
 moulded, I fhall again carrvafs them, and furnifh the i-eader 
 with a farisfa&ory anfwer to every thing which deferves the 
 fmalleft attention. 
 
 The firfl cb?rge he exhibits, p, 49. is want of precifion, 
 becaufe I have not diftinguhlied, * Between oaths that are law- 
 * ful, becaufe the divine lav/ does not forbid them ; and thofe 
 ' that are lawful, becaufe it requires them.* I have not yet 
 found myfelf fo much ftraitened on this controverfy as to have 
 occafion for any fuch diftinclion ; but fince he has brought it 
 on the field, he may direct us, in his next, where to find co* 
 venanting prohibited by the. divine law. It is a tafk yet to 
 begin. Befides, he may be certain, that fome will require a 
 proof, that there are lawful oaths , which are not required by 
 the divine law. 
 
 The ground-work of my account of the morality of covenant- 
 ing was laid in Deut.iv. 1 3, \ 4. andGh.xix. ofourConfef. Sett, 
 iii, iv, Tnat the ceremonial, judicial, and moral law, included all 
 the fratutes and ordinances delivered by Jehovah to the chofen 
 tribes. I endeavoured likewife to (how, that Jewifli covenant- 
 ing was a branch neither of the ceremonial) not judicial, and 
 therefore behoved to be included in the moral law. Till this 
 is refuted by lolid argument, which I have no reafon to ap- 
 prehend from my opponent, as he has attempted it without the 
 remote!* appearance of fuccefs, I am in no uneafmefs about 
 the ilTue of the caufe #. 
 
 * Our author obferves, that this argument would prove, that Tranfubjiari' 
 tiation is a moral duty. That the reader may fee once for all, that it is an 
 eafy matter to turn his ridicule againft himfelf, I obferve. It is plain, as 
 funfhine, that my argument extends only to thefe Jiatutes and ordinances deli- 
 vered by Jehovah to his antient church. Before it prove that any thing is a 
 amoral duty, it is not only requifite that it was neither ceremonial nor judicial, 
 but alfo, that it was delivered by Jehovah to the Jewifli tribes. When he 
 affirms, that my argument will prove Tranfubftan tiation a moral duty, it is 
 plain to a child, he takes it for granted, that it was delivered by Jehovah to 
 the Israelites, otherwife, it has no connection with my argument. In order 
 to lampoon a little, he has furniflaed iw with Popery antient and divinely in- 
 ftituttd ! His holinefs is certaiuly obliged to him ! 
 
 A number of eminent divines, have fpent much time and paias to fix the 
 elate of Antichrift's rife. They will certainly confider him as deferving a 
 medal, for difcovcring Popery, thgufends. of year.5 foQBer, jhaji ever they 
 (poor dull foul*} apprehended. 
 
( II ) 
 
 As I with the reader to underfland our author's reply to 
 my ferraon diftinclly, I may inform him, that it confifts of the* 
 two following unfupported alTertions. 
 
 i. That the ceremonial, judicial, and moral law, did not 
 comprehend all the ftatutes and ordinances delivered unto Ifracl ; 
 
 < a variety of fuch ftatutes were given them after this period, 
 « which fall not under the tripirtite divifion of their law, 
 p. 51. 
 
 2. That the covenant of Ifrael, « was an oath of allegiance 
 
 * to Jehovah their King and Lawgiver/ or civil magiflrate, 
 as he formerly exprelTed it ; and was not included in any par- 
 ticular branch of their law whatever, p. 50. This is the fum 
 of his reply. 
 
 1/?, He maintains, that the ceremonial, judicial, and moral 
 law, did not include all the ftatutes delivered unto Ifrael. He 
 has difcovered a fourth divifion, but furniihes the reader only 
 with one example; namely, the direction given unto Ifrael, 
 ' to encamp between Migdol and the fea.' This is afufficient 
 fpecimcn, however, as he informs us, p. 51. That * a variety 
 ! of fuch ftatutes were given them after this period.' The 
 reader muft underfland, that our author's fourth divifion of 
 the Jewilh law confifis of diurnal ftatutes, or laws of a day's 
 duration; for they are fuch ftatutes, as to encamp between 
 Migdol and the fea. And that the reader may underfland this 
 fourth divifion diftinc*tly, I (hall fupply our author's lack of 
 fervice, by mentioning a few ftatute-laws of the fame kind. 
 
 * Speak unto the children of Ifrael that they go forward,* 
 when they were to march through the flood on foot. * Take 
 
 < up the ark of the covenant, and pafs over before the people/ 
 when Jordan's waters flood like an heap. To * fet lyers in wait 
 behind Ai, and in the meadows of Gilboah, and to fetch a 
 compafs, and come upon the Philiftines over againft the Mul- 
 berry trees.' Thefe and a variety of fuch directions enable our 
 author to form a fourth divifion of the Jew"(h code, confiding 
 of diurnal laws and ftatutes. The reply is exceedingly eafy. 
 If there is any propriety in giving the defignation of laws or 
 ftatutes to fuch temporary injunctions ; — they evidently be- 
 longed to the judicial law ; as it is obvious they were direclio. 
 
 B 2 
 
( H ) 
 
 how to conduct thernfelves as a civil body, or nation, and of 
 confequence were included in the ufual drvifion of the Jewish 
 law Befides, it is extremely probable, the reader will be of 
 opinion, that there is no propriety in giving the defignation of 
 laws and (laixtes to fuch temporary injunctions ; and the ufual 
 divifion no way affected, nor my argument in the leaft weak- 
 ened by our author's diurnal laws. As his fourth divifion of 
 the Jewifh law is a fiction, I pafs on to the fecond branch of 
 his reply ; namely, 
 
 That the covenant of Ifrael was an allegiance-oath to Jeho- 
 vah as their civil magijl rate ; and he might with equal pro- 
 priety have ftiled it an oath of fupremacy, or abjuration. 
 Kow, our author roundly alTerts this allegiance oath; but 
 ■where is his proof? The reader is not to expect any ; a proof 
 is a cumberfome kind of thing : my friend can feldom fubmit 
 to the drudgery of adducing arguments ; nor has he any oc- 
 cafion for them, as he feeras to confider confident affertion, 
 as an irrefragable proof to his followers. He tells us indeed, 
 of a Britifh allegiance-oath, which he maintains would not 
 come under the denomination of law, civil or criminal. But 
 granting him his vifionary Britifh allcgian^e-oath, it would 
 very evidently belong to the civil, and have no more connection 
 with the criminal law, than any other civil ftatute whatever. 
 Yea, granting you, Sir, that your Britifh allegiance oath would 
 not come under the notion of a law, civil or criminal, is this 
 a proof that jewifh covenanting was an allegiance oath ? 
 Becaufe you can, with difficulty enough, patch up an allegi- 
 ance oath to futt your purpofe, does it therefore follow, that 
 the covenant of tfrlel was an allegiance oath of this fort ? 
 Conclufive reafoning ! Your proof is a farour refuved for 
 Jome futile publication. 
 
 Although my opponent'.? civil mdgiflracy, and allegiance 
 catby are an anfwer to every thing refpecting the morality of 
 the covenant of Tfrael ; he not only neglects a proof, but does 
 not fo much as give the leaft explication, well knowing he 
 cannot fupport them. As nothing but the bare designation 
 tivit magijlracy, and allegiance oath can be gathered from any 
 ^jing Mr. Hutchiforj has advanced ; I (hall endeavour to give 
 
( i3 ) 
 
 the reader fome notion of the nature of them, from the ex- 
 plication given of them by others. The fum of it is this. 
 Jehovah as the civil ma gift rate of the Jews, promifed them the 
 pofTeflion of the goodly land, on the exprefs condition of their 
 punctually performing only the external part of obedience to 
 whatever he required, whether ceremonial, judicial, or moral. 
 As it is not mens inward frame, but their outward carriage, 
 which comes under the cognizance of the civil magiftrate ; the 
 Molt High, when he aflumed the character, like other civil 
 magiftrates, did not concern himfelf with their inward frame, 
 and if the external obedience was punctual, although the devil 
 had their hearts, they had a valid claim on their civil magiftrate, 
 for the peaceable pofleftion of the land flowing with milk and 
 honey. Now,' the covenant of Ifrael, it is faid, was an alle- 
 giance Oath to Jehovah, as their civil magiftrate, binding them 
 to perform this external obedience. This is a fummary of the 
 civil magiftracy, and allegiance oath ; and to the mod part, I 
 fuppofe, the recital is a fufTicient refutation. Befides, our 
 author fhould remember, that although fome may explain 
 what they ftile, the Jewifh Theocracy, in a manner admilTable 
 enough ; it will never follow from this, that the covenant of 
 Ifrael was an allegiance oath to Jehovah, in the character of a 
 civil magiftrate. 
 
 I mall now lay before the reader, in a few words, incon- 
 teftible evidence, that the covenant of Ifrael was not an alle- 
 giance oath to a civil magiftrate ; and then (how the abfurdity 
 of fuppofing it was fuch an oath. 
 
 It is plain, as broad day, that to render their covenant an 
 allegiance oath to Jehovah, as their civil magiftrate, it was in- 
 difpenfibly requifire, that in fwearing their covenant, he fhould 
 tranfact with them, and that they fhould confider him in the 
 character of their civil magiftrate. Without this it could 
 never be an allegiance oath to him in that character. It is equally 
 obvious, that in fwearing their covenant, he did not tr.UBfacl: 
 with them, nor did they confider him in the character of a civil 
 magiftrate, but as a reconciled God, as the Lord their Gon. 
 In the introduction to the firfr fwearing of their covemnt, 
 he revealed himfelf to them in the character of their reconciled 
 
( M ) 
 
 God, Exod. xx. i. ' I am the Lord thy God,' a plain evi- 
 dence, that they were to view him in this character, when about 
 to engage, in the flrengtb of his grace, to obey whatever he 
 requireJ. According to my friend's allegiance oath, the de^ 
 claration, ? I am the Lord thy God,' was jad in other words, 
 I sm Jehovah thy civil magiftrate ; the credulous Jew may 
 believe it. Let the reader confult the fecond period of fw.ear- 
 ing their covenant, Deut. xxix. And, in fpite of prejudice 
 itfelf, he mud be convinced, that the covenant of Ifrael was 
 not an allegiance-oath to Jehovah, as a civil magiftrate, but a 
 fblemn engagement unto him as the Lord their God. Ver. 12. 
 ' That thou moulded enter into covenant with the Lord thy 
 * God, and into the oath, whida the Lord thy God maketh 
 ' with thee this day/ Here it is plain to the meaneft capacity, 
 that it was in the character of the Lord their God that he 
 tranfacted with them, and in this very character, that they 
 engaged to believe and obey him. If our author's allegiance 
 oath were jull, ver. 12. mould have run thus, ■ That thou 
 
 < (houlded enter into covenant with thy civil magiflrate ; and 
 
 < into the oath, which thy civil magiftrate maketh with thee 
 
 < this day.' And in the compafs of that (hort chapter, when 
 the infpired penman is expostulating with them concerning their 
 covenant, we have no lefs than fix or eight timei the defignation 
 of the Lord their God, but not a fingle fyilable of a civil 
 magiftrate. It is truly furpriiing, if their covenant was an 
 allegiance oath to God, as their civil magistrate, there is 
 never the mod diftant hint of that character, in the fwearing 
 
 of it. 
 
 The reader may eafily fee, that a man mud (hut his eyes 
 againd the clearer light of the word, before he can give the 
 remotcd aflent to our author's allegiance oath ; for it is plain 
 as a fun-beam, that their covenant was an engagement unro 
 the Lord as their redeeming God. If the declaration, lam 
 the Lord thy Gcd, imported no more than this, I am thy civil 
 magiflrate, what comfort can we, under the New Teftament, 
 deiive from what we have been accudomed to confider, as a 
 mod gracious abfolute promife? Every time we read, Or hear 
 of that gracious declaration, in any part of the Old Teftament, 
 
( *J ) 
 
 and would reft upon it as firm footing for our faith, may not 
 Satan and unbelief fuggeft, what have you to do with this, 
 fince it is only a declaration to the Jews that God was their 
 civil magistrate. How much Chriftians are indebted to Mr. 
 Hutchifon for disenfranchifing them of what they confider, as the 
 very foul, fum, and fubfhnce of the promifes in general, and 
 what they have, times without number, refted upon in parti- 
 cular, as a firm foundation of their faith, let themfelvei 
 declare. 
 
 I mall now point out the abfurdity of this allegiance oath. 
 In whatever character they confidered the Mod High, in fwear- 
 ing their covenant, they certainly engaged to perform every 
 covenant duty in obedience to him in that very character. 
 Bur in fwearing their covenant, they not only engaged to per- 
 form ceremonial and judicial, but all the religious and relative 
 duties of the firft and lecond table of the moral law. Thefe 
 were the very fubfhnce of their covenant engagements, and 
 accordingly ft'led the tables of the covenant ; yea, the covenant 
 hfelf. It natively follows, that if our author's notion of an 
 allegiance oath to the civil magiflratels jult, in fwearing their 
 covenant, they engaged to perform only the external part of 
 reading, hearing, praying, praifing, and every other religious 
 or relative duty, whether in a perfonal, family, or public ca- 
 pacity, in obedience to Jehovah as their civil magiflrate. 
 On the other hand, the moral law certainly bound them to 
 perform both the internal 2nd external part of all the very fame 
 duties, in obedience to him as their reconciled Father, as the 
 Lord God merciful and gracious, feeing he had revealed himfelf 
 to them in that amiable character. My friend's invincible ar- 
 gument, has thij abfurdity in front, obvious to every one, 
 that the Jews were bound by their covenant to perform only 
 the external part of all their duties, religious and relative, as 
 acts of obedience to Jehovah, as their civil magi/Irate : Bound, 
 by the moral law, to perform the internal and external part of 
 all the very fame duties, in obedience to him, as their recorh 
 ciled God in Chrift. To perform religious and relative duties 
 in obedience unto God, as our reconciled Father, is obvious ; 
 but to perform only the external part of them in obedience 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 unto him, in the char after of a civil magistrate, is abfolutely 
 unintelligible. 
 
 I am really in e^neft, Sir, that I am quite at a lofs to un- 
 derftand this two-fold worfhip ; and I apprehend, that moft 
 part of your connexions are in the fame predicament : It is 
 not only above comprehenfion, as many myfleries are, but it 
 is entirely unintelligible, on account of abfurdity in its bofom. 
 You mould certainly inform them; for, if they cannot un- 
 derfhnd the double -xfhip, the morality of the covenant of 
 Ifrael, muft (tend untouched, unlefs they are difpofed to give 
 you implicit faith, which you feem to take for granted. 
 
 It may be objected, that believers worfhip God as their 
 Creator, their reconciled God, their Prophet, Prieft, and King ; 
 but this does not imply as many kinds of worfhip. 
 
 I reply ; it does not, becaufe ail thefe are fpiritual relations, 
 and the worfhip external and internal entirely the fame. But 
 the allegiance oath to the civil magiflrate, includes a relation 
 ftriclly civil, and the worfhip only external, and the reward 
 temporal. It was worfhip different in the cbjecl, the nature, 
 the motives, and re-wart * and not only unworthy of an om- 
 nifcient God who fees and calls for the heart, but unworthy of 
 rational creatures, poffelTed of fpiritual powers, to contemplate 
 and adore their God as the author of eternal life. 
 
 If our author mould alledge, that he confiders the alle- 
 giance oath in a different light ; I anfwer, he has himfelf to 
 blame, if he is injured. I ftated feveral of thefe objections 
 formerly, and defired him to be more explicit, or his affertions I 
 would never be fuftained for argument ; but he refb fatisfied 
 with aflertion ftill, a manifeft evidence he has no defence ; 
 and I have fet it in the fame light with thefe who have patro- 
 nized it. As I have only unfupported affertions to anfwer, I 
 mail conclude this branch of the fubjecl:, when I have taken 
 notice of two frivolous objections. 
 
 I obferved, in my fermoa, that the covenant of Ifrael was 
 never introduced In fuch a manner, as to intimate any new 
 law, or flatute, which was frequently the cafe with ceremonial 
 rites. Our author enlargis confiderably on this ; and any 
 thing worthy of obfervation, is bis aifeiting, page 52. that 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 my argument will prove, that the Jewifh covenant was not m» 
 ral, becaufe it was not introduced in the very fame words with 
 ihe moral law. My argument is this, the covenant of Ifrael 
 was never introduced in fuch a manner as to intimate any new 
 law or fratute, an evidence that it was no pofnive ceremonial 
 rite. I afk my friend, becaufe it was not introduced in the 
 very fame words with the moral law, does it therefore follow, 
 that it was introduced in fuch a manner as to ini'tTiate a new 
 law or ftatute ? The moral law and'jewifli covenant might 
 be introduced in twenty different forms, without intimating 
 any new ftatute delivered. His objection fuppofe?, that there 
 is only one particular method, one precifc form of words 
 whereby a thing could be introduced, fo as to intimate that 
 no new ftatute was delivered. This is abfurd enough j and 
 his jeering on this particular unworthy of reply. 
 
 He obferves, p. 50. « The granting, as our author doe?, 
 
 • p. I 6. that the covenants of Ifrael were partly moral, partly 
 
 * ceremonial and judicial, according to the nature of the law 
 ' they refpecled, furniihes us with a truly new divifion of the 
 
 ♦ obligation of an oath.' The reader, by confulting the pge 
 quoted, will obferve, at fir ft glance, that the argument cen- 
 Cured is not mine ; I only (late it as an objection of anti-cove- 
 nsnters, and anfwer it. When a man, as is frequently done 
 for the fake of reafoning, grants his neighbour's argument, and 
 anfwers it, Mr. Hutchifon has the credit to be the fir ft ir* 
 charging him, with all the abfurdities of that which he ftates 
 as oppofite to his own fentiments, and refutes it. Nor is it 2 
 fiction, that it is urged as an argument, thar the Jewifli cove- 
 nant was not moral, becaufe it included ceremonial rites ; the 
 reader will fee in the fiquel, that Mr. Hutchifon himfelf adopts 
 ir, by arguing again and again, that the covenant of Ifrael 
 was not moral, becaufe it included their ceremonial pofitive 
 fyilem. If he has anfwered his own argument to better pur- 
 pofe than I have done, and turned his argument againft himfelf, 
 I am obliged to him. 
 
 The reader has now feen, that two unfupported afTertions, 
 which mult therefore pafs for nothing, an allegiance-oath, and 
 diurnal laws , are the fubftance of his difcufion of my furnon 
 
 G 
 
( »8 ) 
 
 on covenanting. I cannot anfwer the reader's pfejudice, but 
 with all freedom put his judgment to defiance, to underftand 
 the firft, or make any fort of common fenfe of the fecond, 
 to encamp between Migdol and the fea, a ftatute law. Not 
 a fingle mortal of his admirers underftand them. With equal 
 propriety might he have given them a few fentences of Hebrew, 
 or Arabic, and exclaimed ; a matter of eafy diicuffion ! 
 They underftand the one > quire as well as the other. I defire 
 the reader to lay his hand to his heart, and if he can honeftly 
 declare, that he underltands the allegiance oath, or can 
 make common fenfe of the diurnal laws, I will yield the 
 caufe. AVhen an author of diflingui(hed talents, brightened 
 by uncommon erudition, and entirely matter of elegant com- 
 pofition, is cooped up in a corner, fo that he has nothing but 
 unintelligible airertions to bear him in countenance, and all 
 this by one entirely deftitute of capacity for writing, I afk the 
 reader, if he can helitare a moment to conclude, that his caufe 
 mud be wretchedly bad ? — He demanded, and with much 
 affurance, in a former publication, that if any would attempt 
 to anfwer him, they fhould give him argument, and not un- 
 fupported alTertion. I can appeal to the reader, if I did not 
 keep itri£tly to argument in my anfwer ; I find little reply, 
 however, but aiTertion, evafion, and jefting. An obfervation 
 of a late author, is exceedingly applicable to our author's re- 
 futation of my lermon. * Many controverfial writers, fays he, 
 expect ftricl demnnitration from others ; while in their own 
 caufe, they are not aftiamed to produce /landers for proofs, 
 and jefts for arguments ; and thus they triumph without a 
 TjiSiory, and decide without entering into the merits of the 
 caufe.* I have had only two bare affertions to anfwer, and a 
 fiat denial was a fufficient reply; but I confidered it as requisite 
 to give the reader fome notion of the nature of them. Vox dr 
 preterea nihil *, was a conclufion admirably fuited to our 
 author's fir ft fccTioii. 
 
 * A mete found. 
 
i 19 ) 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Mr. Hutcbifans further obfervalions cvnfidered. 
 
 HE defires his reader, p. 52. to conrrafr a number of 
 obfervations, with my pretended proof of the morality 
 of covenanting ; and no doubt intends, that the reader (hould 
 consider them as unanfwerablc objections, although they are 
 entirely of a piece with his allegiance-oath, and ftarutes of a 
 day's duration. I defire the reader to consider deliberately, 
 the few following plain obfervations, and this feclion \^ili prove 
 a matter of very eafy difculfion. 
 
 1. Every public religious vow or covenan-, ought always 
 to include an engagement, in the ftrength of prom! fed grace, 
 to believe the doctrines of falvation, and perform the duties 
 prefcribed by the moral law. It is true, there may be a call 
 in providence, to be more particular with refpect to fome doc 
 trines and duties, as the prefent truth, and word of Chrift's 
 patience ; or errors and immoralities, as the prevailing evils of 
 the day ; but (till to believe and obey a redeemiug God, is the 
 comprehenfive fum of covenant engagements. Why there 
 mould be fuch a keen oppofition unto, fuch a hideous outcry 
 againft an engagement, in the frrength of grace, to believe and 
 obey a redeeming God, when at any time he calls us thereto in 
 providence, is not very eafy to conceive. This was evidently 
 the cafe with the covenant of Ifrael, ' All that the Lord hacii 
 * fpoken wc will do.' The ten commandments were the fum 
 of their covenant engagements, Ailea, the covenant it/elf, 
 which unqueflionably bound them to believe and obey their 
 God. 
 
 2. If God, in his infinite wifdom fee meet, at any tine, 
 to appoint pofitive inAitutions in his church, thefe ought alfo 
 to be a part of their covenant engagements, while lie fees 
 meet to continue thefe pofitive inOitutions. This was like- 
 wife the cafe with the covenant of Ifrael, as the reader may fee, 
 Nth. x. 30, 39. 
 
 3. If God in his infinite wifdom fee meet, at any time, to 
 
 C 2 
 
( *° ) 
 
 revcrfe pofitive inftitutions, and sppoint others in their room ; 
 the comprebenfive covenant engagement, not only binds them 
 to difcominue abrogated inftitutions; but chearfully to embrace 
 thefe which God has inftituted in their place. When the Jew- 
 ifh ceremonies were difannulied, the Old-Teftament difpenfa- 
 tion unhinged, their covenant obligation, to believe and obey 
 their God, not only bound them to quit reverfed ceremonies, 
 when God had difannulied them ; but to embrace the ordinances 
 and inftitutions of the gofpel difpenfatioa, when God revealed 
 and required them. To refufe either of thefe, was to refufe 
 to believe and obey their God, and a direct violation of their 
 covenant engagements. That the reader may underftand this 
 diftinctly, let him confider the Jews who were living when the 
 Old-Teftamenr riifpenfation was abolifhed, and the New-Tcfta- 
 rnent difpenfation efiablifbed ; they were under covenant obli- 
 gation to believe and obey their God : Now, could they 
 poffibly cleave to the old difpenfation, and reject the new, 
 without refuting to believe and obey their God, to walk in his 
 ways, and comply with his will, the very foul of their covenant 
 engagements? It is plain to a child they could not. Let the 
 reader confider, if the Jews did not refufe to obey trpeir re^ 
 deeming God when they rejected the gofpel ; but this was to 
 violate the very fum of their covenant obligation. I only 
 obferve further, 
 
 4. That from the preceding obfervations, it is evident, 
 that the appointing, or rtverjing of pofitive inftitutions, can 
 never affctl, much lefs difannul, the fum of covenant engage- 
 ments, to believe and obey a redeeming God. It is the fum 
 cf moft of Mr. Hutch'; fon's obfervations, that becaufe the co- 
 venant of Ifrael, included their polhive appointments, the re- 
 velling of thefe difannulied their covenant engagements, and 
 therefore they were not moral. Whereas it is plain, it could 
 not in the leaft affect their obligation to believe and obey their 
 God. If Mr. Hutchifon could prove, that the covenant of 
 Ifrael included only their pofitive appointments, he would have 
 forne fhadow of argument ; but this he cannot. For the read- 
 er muft underftand, that Mr. Hutchifon and I, are perfectly 
 agreed, that whether covenanting is moral or pofitive } it ought 
 
< 21 ) 
 
 to include an obligation to obey whatever God enjoins. P 7°' 
 
 * Mr. Walker replies, if their covenanting was z moral duty, 
 
 * it behoved to include an engagement to obey whatever he 
 « injoined.' I reply again, fays he, ■ that if it was a pofitive 
 ■ duty, it behoved to do the fame thing.' He certainly does 
 not mean, that the Jews were enjoined only to obey pofitive 
 injunctions ; and I afk, if any man can understand, how the re- 
 verting of pofitive injunctions difannulled their engagement to 
 obey whatever God injoined : Were the Jews no more bound 
 to obey what God injoined ? 
 
 This is the fnm of his obfervations. If the reader would 
 remember this, 1 have no occafion to enlarge on his obferva- 
 tions. For brevity I (hall not tranferibe them at large, but 
 give a fummary ; and if I injure him, (hall be ready to ac- 
 knowledge. 
 
 Obf. t . JudaiGn wa? a local fyflem, or confined to the land 
 of promife ; — He Chriftian ie!igion has no refpec~t to one place 
 more than another. — Can t' e render difcover any connection 
 betwixt this and the conclufion. therefore the covenant of Ifrael 
 ivas not nigral? I may obferve, that it is the covenant of 
 Ifrael, and not the Judaic fyflem of government, about which 
 we prefcntly enquire. Are you really in earned, Sir, that it 
 was unlawful for the Jews to covenant without the confines 
 of the promifed land ? Have you forgot that mount Sinai, 
 where they firft covenanted, was not within the borders of 
 Canaan ? A variety of their rites were not local, no moral 
 duty is ; can you prove that their covenanting was ? This 
 obfervation is jnft a good for nothing. 
 
 Obf. 2. -The national oath of Ifrad ceafed to be obligatory 
 upon them after the death of Chrift. — And the conclufion is, 
 therefore their oath was not a moral duty, becaufe moral duties 
 bind at all times. — You give us a fine flourishing illuflration 
 of this remark ; and the fubftance of it is the following. The 
 oath of Ifrael bound them to ceremonial rites, afterward re- 
 vcrfed, therefore the oath itself was not moral. Is not 
 this an excellent proof, that the mgral law is not moral ! 
 No man, who has any moderate fhzre of common fenfe, can 
 refufe, that the moral law bound the Jews to obfet ve their 
 
( » ) 
 
 ceremonial rites, for it bound them to obferve whatever the 
 Lord required. Your argument is this, their oath bound them 
 to obferve ceremonial rites afterward reverfed, therefore their 
 oath was not moral : By parity of reafon, the moral /aw bound 
 them to obferve the very fame rites, flnce the Lord required 
 them ; therefore the moral law is not moral. A duty being 
 pofitive, is no proof that the obligation to perform it is not, 
 moral. Mankind are under a moral obligation to obferve e- 
 very pofitive inftitution or requirement whatever, while God 
 requires it. This is fo felf-evident, that it could not be an o- 
 verfight ; and therefore muft be a defigned impofition on the 
 ignorant clafs of your readers, an evidence of a wretched caufe. 
 You fhould remember, Sir, that although neither the moral 
 law, nor oath of Ifrael, bound them to their ceremonial rites, 
 after they were refcinded, the oath of Ifrael contained fome- 
 thing more than ceremonial rites. You allow, that whether 
 moral or pofitive it behoved to include an engagement to obey 
 whatever God enjoined : But God certainly enjoined them to 
 believe and obey him. This was the very fubftance of their 
 oath, and as binding after as before the death of Chrift. Will 
 mankind believe you ingenious in afferting, that the reverfing 
 of the JewiPn ceremonies difannulled their covenant-obligation, 
 or fet them free from their covenant-engagements to believe 
 and obey their God ? This is the very fubftance of your fecond 
 obfervation. 
 
 Ohf. 3. Soon after the death of Chrift, their city and temple 
 were deilroyed by the victorious Romans. And the conclufion 
 is, therefore their covenant was not moral. — He might juft as 
 well have told us, that after the death of Chrift the Roman 
 empire was over- run by the Goths, and therefore the oath of 
 Ifrael was not moral. He informs us indeed, that it afforded 
 them a two-fold demonftration, that the oath of their covenant 
 was temporary, like the difpenfation they were under. I can 
 readily grant, that it afforded them a providential demonftrati- 
 on, that their ritual fyftem was unhinged ; bur neither this, 
 nor any thing elfe, could afford them a demonftration that 
 their obligation to believe and obey their God, the fubflance of 
 their coveoant-engagement, was difannulled. It is the fubftance 
 
( n ) 
 
 of this obfcrvation, that the oath of Ifrael included riothlng but 
 their ritual fyftem, and what he ftiles a Canaan eftablifliment ; 
 and when thefe were difannulled, their covenant-obligation 
 ceafed, and therefore was not moral. He grants, however, 
 that whether moral or pofitive, it behoved to include an en- 
 gagement to obey whatever God required. Are you in carnelr, 
 Sir, that the Lord required nothing of the Jews, but their ri- 
 tual fyflem, and Canaan eftablifliment ? He certainly required 
 them to believe and obey him ; and their engagement to this 
 as binding after their Canaan eftablifliment was unhinged, as 
 before. 
 
 Obf. 4. The Canaan efhblifhment was a partitibh-wal! be- 
 twixt Jews and Gentiles; and while it continued, the evange- 
 lical difpenfatlon could not be introduced, and the national oath 
 of adherence to that conftitution, added great ftrength to the 
 enmity.— The reader will remember, that the oath of their 
 covenant vas not confined xo the Canaan eftablifliment, as this 
 obfei vation very falfely fuppofes ; and it was their ceremonies^ 
 not their covenant , which were the partition-wail. — I might 
 pafs this obfervation without further reply ; but I have no 
 fcruple to affirm, that the oath of Ifrael did not exclude the 
 gofpel-difpenfation, as our author aflerts, but on the contrary 
 bound the Jews to embrace Ghriflianity. He allows that their 
 oath contained an engagement to obey whatever God enjoined : 
 But God certainly required them to acknowledge the long-ex- 
 pected Mefliah when he appeared, and ro embrace the more fpi- 
 ritual worfhip of the gofpel ; and therefore, agreeable to his 
 own reafoning, the oath of their covenant bound them to be- 
 lieve the gofpel. 
 
 Perhaps it may be alledged, that this '13 only taking the ad- 
 vantage of an inadvertent concdflion ; but without regarding it, 
 I reply : V'heir covenant included an engagement to obey the 
 moral law ; it was the very fubftance of their covenant engage- 
 ments. But the moral law bound them to quit their ceremo- 
 nies when God reverfed them, to acknowledge Jefus of Naza- 
 reth as the true Mefliah when he appeared, and ro embrace the 
 gofpel-difpenfanon: all this was certainly required of them, and 
 they had folemnly engaged to obey. Can yen prove, Sir, that 
 
( ?4 ) 
 
 when they defpifed the Saviour and rejected the gofpel, they 
 did not tranfgrefs the moral law, which they had bound them- 
 feives by oath to obey ? Their covenant-engagements, infread 
 of excluding the gofpel, as you afT rt, confrituted them cove- 
 nant-breakers, when they refufed to believe what God revealed, 
 in direct oppofition to their folemn oath. 
 
 Your fourth obfervation only displays your fuperficial views 
 of a folemn engagement to believe and obey the Lord, as our 
 God, in the flrength of his promifed grace. This is binding to 
 the end of time,, however much pofitive infritutions may be 
 changed. I (hall therefore pafs it with obferving, that you 
 give ns another cogent proof, that the moral law is not moral. 
 You inform us, that the oath of Ilrael behoved to be a pofitive 
 and alterable inftitution, becaufe it bound to a conftitutiori 
 which prevented the eftablilhment of Ghriftianity. But the 
 morsl law undoubtedly bound them to that very fame confti- 
 tution, while God faw meet to continue it. If their oath be- 
 hoved to be pofitive and alterable, becaufe it bound them to 
 the Jewiih conftitution till it was unhinged, according to this 
 {tardy argument, the moral law behoved to be a pojitive and 
 alterable inftitution alfo, for it bound them to the very fame 
 conftitution. You fhould remember, that to believe and obey 
 their God, was the very fubftance of their oath, which is not 
 an alterable inftitmion. 
 
 Obf. 5. Duties truly moral can be obferved in all places of 
 the world, but with the national oath of Ifrael it was other- 
 wife. — This is materialiy the fame with a former obfervation, 
 and the fame reply fufficient. It is readily granted, that duties 
 truly moral may be obferved every where. Bat, are you feri- 
 ous, Sir, that the Jews might not covenant any where ? It is 
 lawful for men in any place whatever, to engage in the ftrength 
 of grace, to believe and obey their God ; can you difoove it? 
 But this was the very fum of the covenant of Ifrack — You 
 fcem to have invented thefe obfervauoas rather as pliy-thingi 
 for fchool-boys, than arguments for men of fenfe ! 
 
 Obf. 6. The fame thing is further evident from Heb, viii. 1 3. 
 1 Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vaui.Ii 
 ' away/— -The apoftle's g&ttiqa hue refpecls the whole fyftcm 
 
( *5 ) 
 
 of legal appointments, which he had called the firft covenant. 
 This obfervarion deferves rather more attention, not on ac- 
 count of being more (olid, but more fpecious than fome of the 
 former. According to Mr. Hutchi'on's own acknowledgement, 
 the apoftle does not fpeak of their covenant, but of a legal 
 fy/ltm which he had fo called. But being ever confident with 
 himfelf, after he has told us, that the apcftle does not fpeak of 
 their covenant, but a legal fyftem, with the very next breath 
 he aflerts, that the covenant, the (acred writer (peaks of. is the 
 national covenant of Krael. He ipeaks of it, and does not 
 fpeak of it at the very fame time. In the fame page, ■ We 
 ' are to underftand the national covenant of I'rael, or their 
 
 * con/lit ution in Canaan? Was their con/lit ution an J covenant , 
 the very fame thing ? Very far from it. An adherence to their 
 conftitution was only a fingle branch of their covenant-engage- 
 ments. You mean the reader (hould give you implicit faith 
 for this, becaufe a proof is cumherfome. — But, palling fuch 
 jargon ; what gives any appearance of llrength to his argument, 
 is contained in verfes 8,9. of the palTage quoted. ■ Behold 
 
 * the days come, faith theJLord, when I will make a new co- 
 < venant with the houfe of Ifrael anJ JuJah ; not according to 
 ' the covenant which I made with their fathers ' That the a- 
 goflle, however, does not mean their narional covenant, is a- 
 bundantly evident from the fcope of the epiftle ; which was to 
 convince the Jews of the excellency of Chrift's priefthood and 
 facrifice, above the Levitical priefthood. Accordingly he tells 
 them, ver. 6. that Chrift had obtained a more excellent mini- 
 ftry. But Jewiih covenanting was no branch of the imperfec- 
 tion of the Levitical priefthood. Befides, it is abundantly evi- 
 dent, that by the covenant made with their fathers, the apoftle, 
 in this paftage, does not mean their national covenant, but the 
 old-tefbment difpenfation at large. My learned opponent 
 Very well know?, that the word may with equal propriety be 
 rendered a trftament. That the apoftle does not mean a cove- 
 nant in the literal fenfe, is further evident from this conilJera. 
 lion. My friends will not alledge, that by a new covenant in 
 this pafiage, he means a covenant in the ftricl feiife of the 
 word, but the r.tii-t: /lament difpenfation : and of conkquence, 
 
 D 
 
( *<s ) 
 
 by the old covenant, he means the o'd.'eflament diCpen fat tort t 
 
 as a proper antithefis. Th ; s n obvious to a child I ("ball 
 
 therefore pafs it over with obferving, that as far as I know, 
 Prefbvterian divines, without exception, confider the apoftle as 
 fpcaking of the old and new.-eftament difpcnfarions ; and they 
 are as likely to give the genuine lenfe as thofe who have a p^rty 
 tenet to fupport. I know very well, that in ooDofition to the 
 general run of commentator?, fome tell us very confidently, 
 that the words are exprefs the covenant which I made, and 
 that rhey will not allow us to exolain them. Bur if we mud 
 not explain what the apoftle means by .the old covenant here 
 fpoken of; neither mutt they explain what he means by the 
 new covenant, but under (land it literally alfo ; and then we 
 have covenanting; exprefs under the new teftament, and accord- 
 ing to Mr. Hutchifon's elegant didYion, a feather in our cap. 
 At this rate, no fcriprure rouft be explained, but underftood 
 literally : This is my body, muft be underftood li-er^lly ; and 
 accordingly, they are good fenfihle prtfbvterian P^piOs — The 
 reader may judge for him 1 elf, whether the general run of Pro- 
 teftant divines, who have no finifter end to accompli b, or an 
 individual, who has a party-noltrum to fupport, deferve moft 
 refpech 
 
 Obf. 7. Exceedingly pertinent to the prefent argument, are 
 the words of infpiration, Htb. iii i, 2. * Confider the apoftle 
 ' and high prieft of our profeflion, Chrift Je(us ; who was faith* 
 ' ful to him who appointed him, as alio Moles was faithful in 
 ' in all his houfe.' Fxceedingly wide of the prefent argument, 
 is this quotation. To give it force, his firft bufinels was to 
 prove that the Saviour, like fome in our day, fet afide the old 
 teftament entirely. But the very reverie was the ca(e ; for the 
 Saviour and his difciples alfo frequently refer their hearers to 
 the old teftament, and prove their doctrines from it. The 
 native confequence is, that where any branch of gofptl-worfhip 
 was clear and explicit in the old teftament, as was evidently 
 the cafe with covenanting, there was the lefs occnfion to be ex- 
 plicit in the new. Chrift: had all the faithfulnefs of both tefta- 
 ments, and was infinitely fuperior to Mofes. 
 
( w ) 
 
 But if you mean, Sir, as your argument plainly imports, 
 that he could not be as faithful as Moles, without being, as ex- 
 plicit in the new teftament. on every particular refpecYing the 
 gofpil-church and gofpel-worfhip, as Mofes was in t;^e old, 
 which is the very foul of your argument ; I afk. is t^e fir ft- 
 d^y Sahr^th as explicit in the new tefhment, as the feventh- 
 d*y Sabbath in the old ? Is the external part of Sabbuh fanfti- 
 fka tion in gener.il, as explicit ? It v»ill be allowed, I luppofe, 
 that infant bap:i!m is as interring a branch of the will of God 
 to the new-rc(bment church, as circumciiion was to the old. 
 The old tefhment lawgiver is clear, exp ictt, and poin:ed, to 
 the very day on which circumcifion was to be adminiftred. Is 
 the ne.v.te (lament lawgiver as explicit with refpeft to in^ant- 
 baptifm ? Does he mention it particularly at all ? You alledge, 
 that it is a cotvweb defen e, that whete the old teftament is ex- 
 prrfs, there was le's occfion to be explicit in the new. B-it it 
 is true, and very applicable to infant baptifm. The old tefta- 
 ment is express, that infants have a right to t'ie initiating feal 
 of the covenant ; God has never reverled their right : I afk, 
 what occafion to be explicit in the new teltament, unlefs im- 
 pious men have a power to reveife their light, when the Lord 
 hirr.felf has never reverfed it. The fame reafoning is equally 
 applicable to covenanting. 
 
 I sm not yet done with this obfervation, Sir ; you have not 
 only a peculiar dtxterity at refuting your opponent ; but it 
 fometimes happens unfortunately, that the very f crip*ure you 
 quote is your opponent. Here you fet out with Chrifr being 
 faithful as Mofes in all his houf*» ; and it is the very foul of 
 your argument, that if there was a (ingle particular refpefting 
 the gofpel.church, fuch as covenanting, on which the Siviour 
 was not as explicit as Mofes, that he was not as faithful as 
 Mofes. But the fcripture you quote imports no fuch thing ; 
 there was no occafion for it ; nor is it matter of fa ft, as is 
 evident from the feventh-day Sabbath, infant circumcifion, and 
 other particulars which might be mentioned. If your argument 
 proves any thing, it proves that ChriR was not as faithful as 
 Mofes, as there are many particulars tefpefting gofpel-wonhp, 
 which the Saviour h3d no occafion to mention explicitly in the 
 
 D 2 
 
( *« ) 
 
 New Teftamenr, as they are fully exhibited in the Old. Yon 
 are very liberal in charging others with blafphemy, without a 
 caufe ; I beg it of you to lay the (addle on the right horfe for 
 once. 
 
 The reader, I fnppofe, has now enough of your obferva- 
 tions. The fum of them is this, Becaufe the covenant of 
 Ifrael included pofitive appointments, therefore their covenant 
 was nor moral : Put if this has any force, their covenant, in- 
 cluding the moral law, is a much ilronger proof that it was 
 undoubtedly moral. You have likewife talked much concern- 
 
 iing a civil magij?rate f an allegiance oath, a Canaan eflabliJJj- 
 ment t and a particular difpenfution of the moral Jaw \ which the 
 Jews were under, neither as a covenant of works, nor as a 
 rule of life, or it could not be particular, or peculiar to the 
 Jews. Thefe have been the ground-work of all your reafon- 
 ing as yet ; and you are at no pains to make your readers un- 
 derftand thefe abftrufe myfteries. They behold a irately (true- 
 ture reared, but totering on the fandy foundation of Mr. Hut- 
 chiion's bare aflcrtion. Not one of your admirers underfland 
 your civil magiftracy allegiance oath, or that namelefs difpen- 
 . tion of the moral law. Cm any of them adduce a fcripture 
 proof of thele myfteries ? or have you given them the lead 
 afliftance ? — My account of the morality of covenanting (lands 
 untouched, till your oblervations are better fupported. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 Mr. HutchiJorfs arguments a^ainft the obligation of public vows 
 on pofttrity examined. 
 
 HE proceeds, p. 58. to confider my account of the obli- 
 gation of public vows on poflerity, and informs his 
 reac.tr, that I urge their obligation on account of pofterity, 
 beinu conGdered as included in their covenanting anceftors. 
 I propofed indeed to mention a variety of arguments which 
 have been adduced; but not to urge or illuftrate them all; 
 and for a very plain jeafon, teveral of them have been urged 
 already to tar better purpole than I can pretend. I obferved 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 alfo, that Hof. xii. 4. has been adduced in fupport of pofterity 
 being included in their anceftors. To this he replies, ' jKob 
 e in that vow fpike unro God.' I fuppofe this is the cafe 
 with every one who vows unto God. But on that memorable 
 occafion, Jacob vowed that the Lord mould be his God ; and 
 when the prophet has put Ifrael in remembrance of this ; he 
 immediately t xhorts them, ' Therefore turn thou to thy God* 
 agreeable to Jacob'? vow. 
 
 I mentioned alio, Heb. viii. 9. where Levi is faid to have 
 paid tithes in Abraham, for he was in the loins of his father 
 when MelcMzedec met him. To this he anfwers ; ■ Abraham 
 
 • was related ro Levi and the Ifraelires as the founder of their 
 ' church.' I mentioned this objection in my fermon, and de- 
 manded a proof, that the deeds of founders of churches are 
 more ( bligatory upon pofterity, than the deeds of other godly 
 anceilors. Mr. Hutchiion replies; * When .the patriarch is 
 
 • viewed as a mere progenitor, the Edomites and Ithmachtes 
 
 • might have been laid to have paid times in him, as well as 
 ' Levi and his tribes ' Can yon prove, Sir, that they might 
 not ? Levi is not mentioned particularly, becaufe it was pe- 
 culiar to him to have paid tithes in Abraham, but the reverfe ; 
 if even Levi t who received tithes, might be faid to have paid 
 them, there could be no hefiration concerning the reft of Abra- 
 ham's offspring. I (hall pafs this, as it has alre<dv been urged 
 to far better purpofe, and Mr. Hutchiion oppofs i: only with 
 bare affertion. Pofterity being in the loins of founders of 
 churches, which is my friends argument ; but not in the loins 
 of other godly progenitors, is likely to remain an inexpiable 
 myflery. 
 
 He concludes this particular with a fprightly flourifh, that I 
 might as juftly plead, that they were all bound to take wives 
 from Padanaram. And why not plead it, Sir ? it was the 
 fubllance of the oath which Abraham put to his fervant, that 
 he mould take a wife for Ifaac of Abraham's own kindred, and 
 not or the curled race of Ham ; and was not this binding on 
 them ? You give fhrev/d evidence, that you underftand the 
 found of fcriptute j but leave the fenfe to others. 
 
( 3» ) 
 
 I obferved further, that fome have infixed, that public vowi 
 are binding on pofterity, when they ate entered into by civil 
 ruleis, as the reprelentarive? of the people ; and Jo<h'»a's co- 
 venant with the Gibeonices adduced as an inconteiHble proof 
 of it. It is very entertaining to fee how he wreathes and 
 ftruggles like a drowning man grafping at weeds and wreck, 
 in order to dilprove the obligation of the Gibeonites covenant, 
 
 while the very attempt is an affront to common ien'e I have 
 
 already let it in fuch a light, as I imagine mult fatisfy every 
 one, except thefe who are under the influence of the mod 
 blinded prejudice. Mi I have now to do, is to anfwer a few 
 nervelefs objections which my opponent mufters up. His firft 
 attempt is to fix a charge of inconfiftency, becaule I obferved, 
 that I did not contend, that public vows could bind men to 
 any thing contrary to the -word of God : But the covenant 
 with the Gibeonites, fays he, was contrary to the exprefs 
 command of God ; and yet I contend that it was obligatory. 
 As I muft meet with him on this particular afterward, I (hall 
 only obferve, my meaning is, that public vows do not bind 
 men to any thing contrary to the moral law of God. I know, 
 Pfal. xv. 4. has been urged ; bur I have no occafion to infift 
 on it. Now, the covenant with the Gibeonites, was contrary 
 only to a pofitive precept ; but the breach of it was contrary 
 to the moral law, which binds men to fulfil their vows and 
 leagues. If he can prove that a pofitive and a moral precept 
 never interfere, and that the pofi'ive ipever gives way to the 
 moral precept, it will be fomething to his piupofe ; but till 
 this is done, his charge of inconfiftency is a mere ficTion 
 
 I mentioned, Jofh. x. 8. where the Lord encourages Jofhua 
 to keep his oath, and defend the Gibeonites. He replies; 
 « This is by no means to be fo con (trucked as that Jehovah, 
 « in the cafe of the Gibeonites, had diipenfed with his own 
 « law, exempting them from the fate of other idolaters in 
 • Canaan.' Inftead of difpenfing with his own law, you 
 fhould have faid, a particular pofitive precept. The reader 
 will obferve, however, that jofhua is promi fed fuccef?, in the 
 moft explicit manner in defending the Gibeonites, and deflroy- 
 ing the combined Kings. If this did not exempt them from 
 
( 3' ) 
 
 the fate of other idolaters in Canaan, it is hard to fay what 
 conld poflibly do fo. I appeal to every unprejudiced perfon, 
 if he does not reprefenr Jehovah as imposing upon and deceiv- 
 ing Jofhua and the princes. He owns that Joftiaa th mght 
 his oath was binding, that the princes thought fo, and Mat 
 they were bound to defend the Gibeonires ; and it is an evi- 
 dence of my frienfs lingular modefty, to impeach their under- 
 (landing, when the Spirit of God in his word has done no fuch 
 thin?.. But wotft of all. Jehovah himlelf eXDrefly approves, 
 by promifing Johua undoubted fuccefs in implementing his 
 oath. If the Gibeonires were not exempted from the fate of 
 other idolaters, J~>(hua's defending them w^s an aft of rebellion 
 againft the command of his God to deftroy them According 
 to mv friend's doctrine, Jehovah encourages Jo-hua unrb, and 
 promifes him fuccefs in an aft of rebellion againft himfclf. 
 
 It is now time to confider Mr. Hutc lifon's re/ons, why 
 Jb'fhua's being encouraged to defend the Gibeonites, did not 
 exempt them from the fate of other idolate s. 
 
 1. * This woald m»ke the providence of God, and not his 
 < law, the rule* This requires a proof, Sir, which you feem 
 to confider as a vry ungainful concern. It was as much the 
 law of God, arret Jofhua's covenant,- as before, tn'at men mould 
 keep their vows and covenants. It was only the moral l.isv 
 the rule, in preference to a (Ingle pofitive precept, as works 
 of mercy are the rule, in preference to the pofitive precept, 
 On it thou /halt not dt any -work. 
 
 2. ■ Yea, what U worfe, it would make the providence of 
 God and his law, clafh againft each other.' The very reverfe 
 is facl : it was the providence of God harmonizing with his 
 moral law, in encouraging Jofhua and the princes, and render- 
 inn them fuccefsfnl in fulfilling their covenant-engagements. 
 BtfiJes, although Jehovah encouraging Jofhua to defend the 
 Gibeonites was not a formal command, it was the divine ap- 
 probation, which is every way equivalent. The reader may 
 obferve, that his arguments fuppofe, that there was no moral 
 law in being at that time, obliging men to fulfil their covenants; 
 but only the pofitive precept to deftroy the devoted nations : a 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 doughty argument, furely ! A pofitive precept annihilates the 
 moral lau .-.! 
 
 3. • The providence of GoH embraced that occafion of cut- 
 ' ting them off (the five king c ) by the Ifraelires.' Provider :e 
 embraced that occafion for defending the Gibeonites. The 
 IfraeliteS might certainly haye al'o v?d the G'beonites to be de- 
 (iroyed, if the oath of the princes was nor binding; it was an 
 additional fin to implement it ■ md providence might hive 
 embraced the fame occalion for carting off the rive kings in the 
 midft of their confufion, after the fla tighter of the Gibeonites : 
 but not a Tingle hint of this fort. Moreover, if the Gibeonites 
 weie not exempted from the fate of other idolaters, why did 
 not providence embrace that occafion of cutting them off alfo ? 
 But inftead of this, Jolhua encouraged to defend them. 
 
 4. * The Ifraelites might deftroy the whole, — buc it would 
 ( have been murder in thefe idolaters to deftroy one another.' 
 Your proof, Sir, that it would have been murder for the Gi- 
 beonites to defend themfelves, and (laughter the affaulting kings. 
 You have forgot common fenfe — The queftion is nor, what 
 right thefe idolaters had to deftroy one another ; but if Joftiua's 
 oath was not binding, would he have been chargeable with 
 murder had he fuffered them to be deftroy ed ? They were e- 
 ▼idently about to deftroy one another ; had providence no right 
 to fuffer them to do fo ? Had the children of Amnion, Moab, 
 and mount Seir, who came againft Jehofaphat, any right to 
 deftroy one another, more than the feven devoted nations ? It 
 is abundantly evident, however, that providence had a holy hand 
 in their deftroying each other. l The Lord fet ambufhments 
 * againft the children of Amnion,' &c. 2 Chron. xx. But here, 
 according to my friend's argument, Joihua muft be fent forth 
 with his army, in order to prevent thefe idolaters from being 
 guilty of murdering one another. 
 
 Thefe are his arguments to prove, that the covenant of the 
 Gibeonites was not binding, and when one begins to canvafs 
 them, they remind him of i£neas grafping the apparition of his 
 beloved Creufa. 
 
 I mentioned alfo, 2 Sam. xxi. at the beginning. His ob- 
 ferrations on this are dill more tufting, if any thing can be fo. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 i In this pafTage, fays he, we have a fliort hiflory of the CI* 
 
 * beonites, what they were, and what they were not, and 
 < what had been tranfacled between them and the Ifraelite?. 9 
 But for what end, Sir, have we this (hort hiflory ; is it a 
 piece of mere entertainment ? The Spirit of God informs U3 
 exprefly, that the famine was fent becaufe Saul fought to flay 
 the Gibeonitcs. It was very natural to afk, Who were thefe 
 Gibeonites, whofe caufe the Lord thus efpoufed ? It is an- 
 fwered ; They were not of the children of Ifrael, but of the 
 refidue of the Amotites. It was fVill more natural then to 
 afk, Was it not Saul's duty to flay them ; and why villt with 
 famine for Saul doing his duty ? The anfwcr is plain and 
 poinded, < the children of Ifrael had fworn to them,' and it wag 
 'direct violation of folemn engagements for Saul to attempt t© 
 injure them. You inform your reader, that I might as well 
 have urged the expretfion, ' the Gibeonites were not of the chil- 
 
 * dren of Ifrael,' <bc. as a proof of covenant obligation — You 
 are a little miflaken ; for, it is plain to a demonflration, that 
 « the children of Ifrael had /worn to them,' is atfigned as the 
 reafon why it was unlawful to flay them. It appears evident 
 to me, that no man, who is not blinded with prejudice, can 
 read the paflage, without laughing at your childifti com- 
 ment. 
 
 He adds, ( To me it appeal s not improbable, that the Gi- 
 
 1 beonites became profelytes to the religion of Ifrael, when the 
 ' covenant was made with them, or about that time.' — I am not 
 very much concerned about our author's probabilities* To me 
 it appears very probable, that if they were profelytes, the Spirit 
 of God would have given us a very different account of them 
 
 2 Sam. xxi. 2. It would have run thus, They -were profelytes 
 to the religion of Ifrael, and S3ul fought to flay them ; align- 
 ing their being profelytes as the reafon why it was unlawful 
 to fliy them. But inftead of this, it runs, The children of 
 Ifrad had sworn to them ; atfigning their oath as the reafon, 
 why it was unlawful to deftroy them. I am no way concerned 
 whether they were profelytes or nor, fmce the oath of the 
 children of Ifrael is evidently mentioned, as the reafon why it 
 was unlawful to touch them. I muft not, however, with-hold 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 
 from the reader the reafons of our author's probability, that 
 the Gib' onites were profelyres. 
 
 i . * They feem to have been moved by the fame of the 
 < God of Ifrael ; fo they exprefs themfelves, Joh ix. 9. From 
 « a very far country thy fervants are come, becaufe of the name 
 « of the Lord thy God ; for we have heard of the fame of him, 
 « and all that he did in Egypt. It is pUin, as a fun-Seam, 
 that all this was mere pretence to impore upon Jofhua and rhe 
 princes \ the Spirit of God evidently clafTes it with the other 
 branches of their guile : and it was juft as true as that they 
 came from a far country. To ufe my friend's own dialect, 
 he might jufl as well have aflerted, that it was not improbable 
 they were profelytes, becaule they had clouted fhoes on their - 
 feet, and mouldy provifion in their veflels ; for this, and the 
 fame of the God of Ifrael, was entirely of a piece with them ; 
 a downright impofition. They were jufl moved, like the reft 
 of the Ganaanites, through fear of their life, although they con- 
 duced themfelves more craftily ; and as loon as their life was- 
 fecured by folemn oath, they frankly acknowledge it. The : 
 crafty Gibeonites are much more candid than their advocate, j 
 Jofh. ix. 22, 24. ' And Jolhua fpake unto them, faying, 
 < Wherefore have ye beguiled us ? — And they anfwered,— 
 « We were fore afraid of our lives becaufe of you, and have i 
 ' done this thing.' Not a word now of the fame of the God \ 
 of Ifrael ; but fear of their life: they candidly acknowledge I 
 the truth. You might as well have aflerted, Sir, that they .,: 
 were Scotch Highlanders, or St. Ninian's Relievers ; their being 
 moved with the fame of the God of Ifrael is as cogent a proof I) 
 of the one'as of the other. I mould not have infilled on this 
 reafon of probability, if you had not afTerted, that it was a 
 luchy circumftance for me, that I did not reft the caufe on the 
 <jibeonite's covenant. I can freely af* the reader, if he under* 
 ftands what mifluck would have befallen me although I had ? 
 When one of your uncommon abilities, is reduced to fucb 
 feeble ridiculous arguments, the reader can be at no lofs to 
 judge which of us have truth on our fide. 
 
 2. * It can fcarcely be thought, that Jofhua and the Ifraelitei 
 * would permit the Gibeonites to prac*tiie idolatry among them. 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 He has forgot, that Jofhua and the princes were to ignorant, 
 as to imagine, that on account of their oath, it was unlawful 
 to touch them. And although they retrained them from the 
 open practice of idolatry, it does not follow, that they ad- 
 mitred them as profelytes. Nor does it follow, that the Gi- 
 beonires would embrace the Jewifh religion, although they were 
 retrained. Befides, he ought to have furnilhed us with a 
 proof, if the oath of the princes was not binding, that admit- 
 ting them as profelytes was confident with the exprefs com- 
 tnani which he urges for their deftruction. This reafon of 
 probability is lame on all fides, 
 
 3. ' Being connected with the victorious Ifraelites, as their 
 ' fervants, and under their power, they would, it is reafonjble 
 1 to think, foon embrace their religion.' — But why fo reason- 
 able to think (o ? From Joihua to David, the victories of Ilrael 
 were neither very frequent, nor of long continuance. Befides, 
 did the Papifts in Britain foon embrace the religion of the vie. 
 torious Proteftants, even before they were allowed the free 
 exercife of their own ? No, verily. — Your reafons of probabi- 
 lity are of very little weight. He adds, 
 
 * Now, if this was the cafe, Saul's wicked zeal in butcher- 
 1 ing the worfhippers of the God of Ifrael, fuily accounts for 
 ' the famine,' be This is exprefTed with more than ufua! 
 caution, if this was the cafe; ani it was very requifite, for 
 it is the plain import of it, if the fcripture is wrong in affigning 
 the violating fhe oath of Ifrael as the c^ule of the famine, and 
 my reafons of probability juft. But if this was the cafe, that 
 they were profylites, it is an inconteftible proof that the oath 
 of the princes was binding. If it was the cafe, to flay the Gi- 
 beonites was in fact a butchering the woriluppers of the God 
 of Ifrael ; but the Spirit of God does not aflign this, but the 
 violating of the oath of Ifrael, as the caufe of the famine. 
 He adds, 
 
 * It was only a civil covenant.* I ftited this objection in 
 my fermon, p. 20. and anfwered it; and as he gives no reply, 
 I refer the reader to what is there fuggefled. — /Thefe are his 
 objections to the Gibeonites covenant : to deny its obligation, 
 is an evidence of confiderable fortitude ; and being able to 
 
 E 2 < 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 inufter up fuch a number of afTertion? againft it, although de- 
 stitute of argument, an evidence of diAinquimed talents; for 
 no man can read Jo(b. ix with 2 Sam. xxi. and entettain the 
 remoteft fufpicion of its obligation. 
 
 It has like wife been urged, that public vows are binding by 
 way of motive and excittment. To this he anfwers : ' You 
 
 * fhould firft have proved, Sir, bttter than you have done, 
 < that fuch examples are required by the moral law/ Till you 
 favour us, Sir, with fomething like argument to difprove thefe 
 examples, which you have not done as yet, you defer ve no 
 reply. 
 
 1 urged it likewife as a proof of covenant obligation, that 
 Jehovah denounces dreadful judgments sgainft Ifrael for violat- 
 ing the covenant of their fathers. He replies, that the national 
 covenant of Ifrael, * was made not only with thefe who fird 
 
 * entered into it in Moab, but with every generation of their 
 « pofterity.' And quotes Deut. xiii 14,15. By confulting 
 the paffage, the reader will fee, at flrft glance, that there is not 
 the remoteft hint of the covenant being made with every gene- 
 neration ; it is only a plain injunction to deftroy idolaters, 
 agreeable to one branch of their covenant engagements. It 
 was likewife neceifary to have informed us, how the covenant 
 in the plains of Moab was made with every generation : They 
 bad not a bting as yet; perhaps they were confidered as- in- 
 clude ft in their covenanting sneeftors. But agreeable to his 
 comment on Levi paying tithes in Abraham, even their being I 
 included in their covenanting anceflors, could not render the 
 covenant cb igatory, unlets ail the covenanters in Moab's plains 
 were founders of churches. The fcripture he quotes, is a 
 plain declaration, that covenants are binding on poiierity ; and 
 his averting, char it is impertinent to apply this to Chriftians, 
 is only an impertinent begging of the queftion. He leaves this 
 aipumeni jufl as he found it. 
 
 A? much of the lame import with the former argument, I 
 urged covenant obligation on pofterhy, becaufe the word of 
 Cod exprrfly declares it. Deut. xiii. 14, 15. and xxix. 
 x&*i the tlofe ; and a variety of other fcriptures. 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 On this particular I adduced, Jer. xxxv. concerning the 
 Rechabites obeying the command of Jonadab their father, hun- 
 dreds of years after, and Jehovah approving. He replies ; 
 « The Rechabites only obeyed the fifth commandment, in obey- 
 ' ing the mandate of their father Jonadab; and who denies the 
 
 * obliging force of this command ?' This is the very fubftance 
 of all I con'end for. He readily prants, that the fim pie man- 
 date of a progenitor, is obligatory on his offspring, hundreds 
 of years after, in virtue of the fifth command ; for commen- 
 tators allow, and it will not eafily deny, that Jonadab lived 
 many hundreds of years before this time. Now, if the fimple 
 mandate of progenitors is binding on their offspring, hundreds 
 of years after, in virtue of the fifth command, fuppofing them 
 to deliver this mandate in the way of a fohmyi vow, would this 
 difannul the binding force of the fifth command ? Can the 
 reader underfland how it mould ? It is all a matter to me, 
 whether it is the fir ft or fifth command which renders the 
 mandates and vows of progenitors obligatory, fince the word of 
 God declares they are lb. Inflead of refuting this argumenr, 
 he exprefsly grants it, and fupports it to far better purpofe than 
 1 had done. He indeed chufes his own way of fixing cove- 
 nant obligation ; and I have no quart el with him : we are for 
 once quite agreed, that vozus and covenants are binding on 
 poflerity, — I obferved, that there might be a vow in the cafe 
 of Jonadab, although it is not exprefly mentioned. On '"* : * 
 he remarks, in his ufual fpirited manner, « his ponderous 2i- 
 
 * gument has ended in a may be. y Although this were true, 
 Sir, it might nearly ballance your not improbable ; one of your 
 ponderous arguments in the preceding p3ge. You are, how- 
 ever, a little miftaken ; for I faid, and fay it again, that my 
 argument is even more forcible without, than with a vow. If 
 the fifth command bind to the fimple injunction, it mud cer- 
 tainly bind to the folcmn vow. f 
 
 t I am much Indebted to you, Sir, for your valuable piece of informa- 
 tion, that I illicit .is well have faid, that the Judicial Teftimony was there. 
 Oi.ly. w'th Inhmiflion :o your fupcrior judgment, the iimilitude would have 
 much more had you faid the Relief Teftimerty ; for, it' it was 
 
 not there, to this day it hat been no where elfc in the world, th.it any man 
 knows of. 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 I infilled particularly, that the religious covenants of an 
 ceftors are binding on their offspring, becaufe in the very na 
 ture of church fellow fhip, when pofterity are admitted to Teal- 
 ing ordinances, they voluntarily come under the fame engage- 
 ments with thefe by whom they are admitted. To this, he 
 replies, • No, Sir, the primitive church of Rome, did not 
 t" view the Jewifh converts, as coming under her obligations, 
 
 * in the article of ceremonial ufages, when fhe admitted them 
 
 * as members.* My friend is very prudent on this particular. 
 Mr. Ramfay had anfwered him on the xivth of the Romans, 
 in a very judicious, but in a pretty general manner : I ani. 
 madverted on every particular of his paraphrafe and deductions, 
 and did not expe£ he wouli atrempt an anfwer. Accordingly, 
 when he meets with Mr. Ramfay, he challenges him very con- 
 fidently for overlooking his paraphrafe and deductions ; but 
 when 1 come in his way, he has already anfwered Mr. Ramfay, 
 a far better writer. Accordingly, a magifterial, unanfwerable 
 No, Sir, is all the reply. Your comment on the xivth of the 
 Romans, is fo inconfiftent, that every curfory glance piefents 
 new abfurdities ; and as it is the only pillar to fupport your 
 terms of communion, I mean yet to vex you a little. 
 
 You talk of their admitting thtle Jewifh converts ; how do 
 you know, that they did really admit them ? Where is your 
 proof ? You will probably reply, the apoftle exnrefly injoined 
 ,uc ?m, ver. i. Very well. Did not the apoftle as exprtfly 
 injoin them to confider the controverted point, to ufe the lan- 
 guage of the paraphrafe, as a matter of indifference, ver. 5. ? 
 "Will you pretend to give a more concife, and pointed defcrip- 
 tion of a thing indifferent, than the apoftle has done ? If a 
 thing is finful in itfelf, contrary to the divine law, a man be- 
 ing perfuaded, or not, can never alter the nature of it, and 
 render it a duty. But there cannot be a more pointed defcrip. 
 tion of a thing indifferent, than that which the apoftle gives us, 
 ver. 5. that which a man may either do, or forbear, if he 
 a& not contrary to his own confcience. ' Let every man be 
 
 * fully perfuaded in his own mind,' and let him either do, or 
 forbear, without judging others who differ from him. Now, 
 if they confidered the controverted points as things indifferent^ 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 t gives no countenance to your caufe ; for it is not contend- 
 ed that things indifferent ought to be ftated as terms of com* 
 munion : But the evidence is precifely the fame ; for their ad. 
 mitring thefe Jewifti Chriftians, and confidering their contro- 
 vert as a matter of indifference, viz. the apoftle's exprefs 
 injunction. 
 
 Now, Sir, ftand forth and exert yourfelf, for your caufe 
 is in danger. If you maintain, that they admitted thefe weak 
 Chriftians, agreeable to apoftolic injunction, ver. i. ; you mull 
 likewile maintain, that they confiJered their difputes as matters 
 of indifftrence, agreeable to the fame injunction, ver 5. ; and 
 your caule is loft. If you maintain, that apoftolic injunction 
 was the rule, ver. 1. whether they admitted or not ; you mufl 
 likewife maintain, that the fame injunction was the ruk t ver. 5. 
 whether they confidered their difputes as indifferent or not ; 
 and you are as far from you purpofe as ever. In order to 
 have any counrenance from the paflage, you muft maintain, 
 that they obeyed apoftolic injunction, ver. 1. but difrcgarded 
 it, ver. 5. But who told you, Sir ; can you produce a cre- 
 dible informer, that they obeyed one apoftolic direction, ver. I, 
 but di/obeyed another, equally exprefs, ver. 5. ? Nay, what 
 is much worfe, you muft maintain that the apoftle's mandate 
 Was 7ft/?, ver. I.; but that, like Jofbua and the princes, he 
 was entirely miflaken> ver. 5-: if he was not, their difputes 
 were matters of mere indifference for the time, and give no 
 countenance to your argument in the world. 
 
 You inform us, p. 39. chat to obferve any ceremonial or- 
 dinance, after the death or Chrift, was mere fuper flit ion. Here 
 you evidently differ from the apoftle, who reprefents a variety 
 of them as indifferent for a time. But you have a falvo at 
 hand, p. 40. they were only indifferent, * as no religious or- 
 1 dinances at all •• and were entirely unlawful, « as parts of 
 1 divine worftiip.' But when the apoftle informs us, Rom. 
 Xiv. 6. * He that regardeth a day, regardeth it unto thi 
 * Lord :' do you really think, that he did not regard it as 
 any part of divine worjhip P Can a child refrain from holding 
 you up to derifion ? For, in this precife view, it was for the 
 time indifferent. I would not wifh to be uncharitable, but you 
 
C 40 1 
 
 redly give fome ground of fulpkion, th.it you differ not only 
 from all orthodox divines, but that you differ from the vene« 
 rable ;}poft!,*s alfo, on this particular. 
 
 You have informrd us agaia and again, that to obferve any 
 of the ceremonies after the death of ChrifK was mere fuperftl 
 tion y error, gro/s crror f a breach of the fecond command. I 
 the reader pleafes, he may confnh Acts x*i. 20 and down 
 ward, where the reft of the apoftles aJdreis Paul. ver. 20 
 4 Thou feeft brother, how many thoufand Jews there are who 
 € believe, and they are all zealotjs of the law ;' namely, 
 the ceremonial law, as was evident from their ben^ affembled 
 at Jerufalem to obferve the feaft. Ver. 23. « We have four 
 * men which have a vow on them ;' [viz: a ceremonial vow, 
 or Paul joining himfelf to them would have ^iven the Jews no 
 fatisfaclion.] Ver. 24. * Them take, and purify thylelf with 
 1 them, and be at charges with them.' Ver. 2 6. « Then Paul 
 ' took the men, and the next day, purifying himfelf with ihem, 
 ' entered into the temple.' 
 
 I may afk my opponent, if the apoftles were fo ignorant^ 
 as not to underftand fuperftitiott t error, gro/s error, a breach 
 of the fecond command r* Or were they fo daflardly, as, thro* 
 fear, not only to connive, but openly pracYife thefe things 
 themfelves ? No man can read the pafTage without concluding, 
 as divines have done hitherto, (Mr. Hutchifon excepted,) that 
 thefe ceremonies were for the time indifferent ; and that they 
 might do or forbear, according as expediency and edification 
 required. Let the reader confult Rom. xiv. 5. Acts xxi. 20. 
 and downward, and confider if it is practicable to free 
 my opponent from charging the apofrles with will-worfbip, fu« 
 perflation, error, grofs error, a direct violation of the fecond 
 commandment. It is pretty evident that you are at variance 
 with the apoftles ; and I have fome apprehenfion, that if I come 
 in your way again, on this particular, you will have anfwered 
 fome better writer before-hand, and a magifterial No, Sir, all 
 the anfwer I muft expect ; for whether your terms of commu- 
 nion are right or wrong, they have not the remoteft fliadow 
 of countenance from the xivth of the Romans. 
 
 It is now time to return to my argument. I maintain, 
 
< 4i ) 
 
 that perfons who are* received members of any religious body, 
 they become a part of that body, and voluntarily come under 
 the fame obligations with thefe who receive them. To this, 
 an emphatic, No, Sir, is all the reply.— I endeavoured to il- 
 luftrate this, from the confideration of civil Societies ; and (ball 
 give the reader another fpeeimen of my opponent's candor. 
 He aliens, p. 62. * You argue, that becaufe civil focieties re- 
 ' q'lire thele whom they receive to fubmit to their regulations, 
 1 therefore churches (hould do the fame.' AVell did he know, 
 that not one word of this was fact. The reader (hall hear my 
 own words. After I had ftated the argument, I obferved, ' It 
 
 * lucre eafy to illuftrate this by civil focieties* And as I could 
 cafily forefee his quibble; with a view to prevent all grounJ of 
 cavilling, I added, * // will perhaps be /aid, that this is a mo- 
 
 * delling of religious, by the rules of civil focieties. I anfwer, 
 
 * it is only an illuflration, which the fcripture abundantly war- 
 
 * rants* I afk the reader, if words could more exprtily dif- 
 claim the charge ? And he is prudent enough to give no quota- 
 tion of my words as the foundation of it. You might juft as 
 well afTert, Sir, that when the prophet illuftrates the godly's 
 mounting on the wing of faith, and other heavenly graces, by 
 the eagle mourning with wings ; that he maintains, that be. 
 caufe the eagle mounts, therefore the godly are to do fo alfo. 
 "When the apoflle illuftrates the Chriftian's driving for the im- 
 mortal crown, by the driving in the Olympic games ; you may 
 juft as well aflert, that he maintains, that becaufe they flrove 
 in thefe games, therefore Chiiftians fhould ftrive alfo. — To 
 fqueeze and torture an argument, may*be fomething difagree. 
 able ; but to charge a man with a well-known downright falfe- 
 hood, in opposition to his own explicit and pointed declaration, 
 is an evidence of ! Ic (hows, however, that an argu- 
 ment is conliderjhly (lubbom, when there is nothing but fal- 
 lacy for reply. I cannot undtrftand what my opponent in- 
 tends by averting fuch glaiing fictions; unlefs he is confci- 
 ous that his caufe cannot (land the tell of fair argumentation, 
 and experts, in this manner, to ditfuade every one from aufwcf* 
 ing him, as incapable of being reaforied with. 
 
 F 
 
 V 
 
— 
 
 ( 4* ) 
 
 He obferves further, i a civil fociety has the power of male 
 ' ing its own terms of admiflion, provided they are not con 
 
 * trary to God's law ; but the church has no power to make 
 ' her own terms of admiflion : thefe are adjufted by her divine 
 
 * Head.' In this, we are entirely agreed. I expect you will 
 allow, that the church has a right to demand an approbation 
 of the terms adjufted by her divine Head ; and we demand no 
 more. 
 
 He adds, with ufual decorum, ( Your A flbci ate Church, how- 
 « ever, takes the liberty to make, and to alter her terms of ad- 
 ' million, as fuits the defigns of her priefthood.' Our AiTociate 
 Church has made no terms of communion which are not adjuft- 
 ed in the word, and which (he is no way afraid to maintain. 
 We could wifh, Sir, to fee a learned and judicious proof, by 
 fome of the Relief priefthood, that terms of communion ought 
 always to be the fame, in every fituation of the church. It is 
 plain as a fun-beam, that ceremonial rites were no term of 
 communion with Paul at Jerufalem, Acts xxi 20, — 26. They 
 as evidently were fo at Antioch, Gal. ii. 11, to. 
 
 But, palling this ; I readily acknowledge, that your Relief 
 church has evidently the advantage of us in this particular : She 
 may alter her terms of communion an hundred times, and no 
 man have it in his power to charge her with inconflancy. She 
 informs us, that ejpntials and fundamentals are her terms of 
 communion ; but what thefe are, fhe does not pretend to de- 
 termine. Accordingly, at one meeting of fynod, this may be 
 a fundamental that a cjreumftantial ; at the next, it may be 
 vice verfa, this a circumfiantial, and that a fundamental ; and 
 thus fhe may fluctuate perpetually, according to the humour of 
 the day, her primum mobile, and no man ever have it in his 
 power to charge her with deviating from her general rule. 
 
 Your terms of communion render the New-Teftament Law- 
 giver lefs faithful than Mofes, in fixing terms of communion, 
 of which a whole religious body can give no particular account. 
 "We are told, indeed, that fcripture, Chrifl, and grace, are 
 fundamentals; but we are ftill as much at a lofs where to find 
 you as ever. To go no further than the firft of thefe funda- 
 mentalsj I afic, is all fcripture fundamental \ or do many paf- 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 fages of it contain circumf}antial t lefs important matters ? We 
 are juft as uncertain as ever ; but it was the faying of a good 
 and learned man, and therefore rauft attract by-a fecret mag* 
 netilm, and mud be fufficient to thefe whofe Creed is compre- 
 hended in the piety of other men. — We are alfo told, that 
 there are errors abiut the foundation and errors again/1 it ; 
 and that the firir of thefe are not prrperly fundamental. I alk, 
 Do your terms of communion exclude, on account of errors 
 improperly fundamental, or only for thefe which are Jlriclly 
 fo ? How loofe, and indeterminate (till ! And why fuch a 
 prodigious blufter, about your terms o' communion fixed by 
 the church's Head, while no man < n tell what they are r — la 
 this, Sir, your Relief Church has confeiTedly the advanuge ; 
 for our terms of communion are publifhed to the world, they 
 are no (ecret, are not huddled up in ambiguity. 
 
 Thefe are his decifive objections, to my account of cove- 
 nant-obligation on pofterity. I have generally had little occa- 
 sion to fupport my former arguments, as he feldom looks nigh 
 thtm : My principal bufinefs has been, to refute fome filfe 
 charge, or anfwer fome heterogeneous flory, which has no 
 connexion with the point in hand. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Mr. Hutchifcn's Arguments for the prefent -Performance of 
 covenanting con/idered. 
 
 HE proceeds, in p. 62. to confider, what he is pteafed 
 to (tile my apology for the neglect of covenanting ; and 
 with all the rhetoric he is mailer of, to fupport a prefent call 
 to the fokmn duty. I am no way careful to anfwer him on 
 this particular; hi? defign is too glaring : but as a moie pitiable 
 fcene has feldom been pieftnted to public view, th^f* can be 
 little difficulty in expofing it, without giving any ground of 
 offence to our brethren. He oblerves, that to clear my ro d, 
 I diftingoifh berween occajional and flattd dutit s. Tru n 
 may conlider the diflincYion as jult ; for my opponent has no 
 objection. I endeavoured alfo to prove, that thete is not a 
 
 F 2 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 call in providence, at all times, to perform occafional moral 
 duties. I mentioned alms-giving, which many have never a 
 call ro perform ; and defending ourfelves from the inroads ol 
 phh'ic enemies, in which dates and empires may, for ages, have 
 ro call to be engaged. Neither of thefe can he deny : • but 
 what, fav? he, is this to the purpofe ! Very much to the 
 purpofir, Sir ; you are ftill exclaiming, a moral duty, and never 
 perform it all our life-time ; on this you delight to dwell, be- 
 caufe it is a kind of hideous found in the ears of the inconfide- 
 rate. The firfr is an inftance of a moral duty, which indivi- 
 duals may never have a call to perform ; and you cannot deny 
 it; the fecond, a moral duty, which ftaies and nations may, 
 for ages, have no call to perform ; nor can you difprove it : 
 what foundation then for your bluftcr, a moral duty, but never 
 perform it ? This is all it was intended to prove ; and you 
 cannot refufe it. — You inform your reader, that my reafoning 
 may be turned againfl: myfelf, becaufe we have * fo many calls 
 * in providence' to covenanting. This, is the very point yet 
 to prove. I would afk it as a particular act of kindnefs, that 
 in your after reafoning, you would favour us with your pre- 
 miles, before your fpruce conclufion. 
 
 I obferved, that as the fcripture is not explicit, with refpecT: 
 to the feafons of covenanting, we muft judge by the fituation 
 of the church ; the occurrences and calls of providence ; toge- 
 ther with what affifta'nce we can obtain from fcripture example 
 for our direction. But, as fome have afferted, that the church 
 has a power to fix the feafon of occafional duties, independent 
 of fcripture example, which feems to be attended with fome 
 difficulty, if our circumflances are entirely fimilar to thefe re- 
 corded in fcripture; I therefore obferved, that we are not to 
 difre^ard the affiftance which fcripture example affords us. 
 On this, he informs me, that I have fcripture example for 
 wtek'y communicating, and why do I not pracYife it ? That 
 I am in a noofe, and how I can get out he knows not. Your 
 noofe. Sir, is entirely imaginary. It is when circumftances 
 are fimi'ar, that I maintain we are to be directed by fcripture 
 example. Till you prove, that our circumftances are fimilar 
 to thefe of the church in the apoflolic age, your noofe is a 
 
< 45 ) 
 
 mere figment. Befides, where is your proof, of fcripture ex- 
 ample for weekly communions ? You quote Acts xx. 2. ■ And 
 * upon the firft day of the week, when the difciples came to- 
 1 gether to break bread, Paul preached to them.' And becaufe 
 they came together on one firft day of the week to break bread, 
 therefore they came together kvi*y firft day of the week for 
 the fame purpofe ; irrefragable proof ! But you have affiftance 
 at hand, leapned Doctors announce, that this was their ufual 
 cuftom. I little expected, that fuch a ftrenuous advocate for 
 the right of private judgment, would direct me to pin my 
 faith to the flee ve of others. Your proof of weekly commu- 
 nions is palpably lame ; and I fuppole you will not attempt to 
 prove a fimilarity of circumftances. Your noofe has turned 
 out a rope of fand. 
 
 His next attack is upon our covenant engagements. The 
 Ifraelites, fays he, fwore only to adhere to God's teftimonies, 
 as exprefted in his own words, but ours are exprelTed in the 
 words of fallible men. — What connection in the world, has 
 this with the feafons of covenanting, the point he is now hand- 
 ling ? The reader muft always expect, that the point Mr. 
 Hutchifon propofes to handle, will engrofs but a fmall part of 
 his reafoning. It is true, Mofes delivered their covenant en- 
 gagements in the words of infpiration ; but I defire my learned 
 friend to prove, that, in any after covenanting periods, their 
 engagements were exprefted twice in the fame words ; or any 
 of them in the exprefs words of infpiration ; or that we have 
 any thing but a fummary of them. We are told exprefly, 
 Neh. x. that they made ordinances for themfelves, which were, ( 
 doubilefs, agreeable unto, and founded upon the word, and 
 included in their covenant engagements : but if the exprefs 
 •words of infpiration, how are they faid to hive made them? 
 Our covenant engagements are very little affected by this raa- 
 dom objection. 
 
 We have fometimes heard of fyllabic infpiration. Of late 
 we hear of fomething exceeding like a fyllabic approbation of 
 Confeftions ; not a chearful approbation of the doctrine, but of 
 cvciy particular mode, or manner of expreiTing if, however 
 much it may be confejfedly abufed to the fubverting of fouls, 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 and that we muft be honeft Catholics, and rather queftion our 
 own intellectuals, than any particular mode of expreflion uted 
 by divines, whofe fentimenis we profefledly approve of. Per* 
 haps my opponent means to corroborate, by introducing a 
 fyllabical /wearing of covenants. The matter of our covenants 
 is agreeable to, and founded upon the word of God ; and we 
 never intended to fwear to the fyllablcs or founds. 
 
 My difficulty concerning covenanting at prefent, was fura- 
 xned up in the two following particulars. t . Thefe who 
 are evidencing a becoming attivity in reformation, are mattered 
 and torn, reviling and tearing one another. 2. When differ- 
 ent denominations covenant, and forfiucar one another's dif- 
 tinguifhing principles ; inftead of flrengthening one another's 
 hands, one end of the folemn duty, they rather weaken and 
 difcourage one another ; and that it does not appear to me, 
 that we have fcripture example for covenanting in fuch cir- 
 cumftances. — Thefe things I obferved as my own view of the 
 matter, without reflecting on our brethren, who are no doubt 
 fatisfled, that they have a clear call to the duty in their prefent 
 circ urn fiances. 
 
 To the firfr, Mr. Hutchifon replies ; ' The divided Oate of 
 ' the tribes, in Afa's time, was thought a good reafon for 
 ' covenanting.' — Your proof, Sir. Where is the divided 
 ftate of the tribes at that time, affigned as a reafon for cove- 
 nanting at all, good or bad ? It is a reafon of your own fa- 
 brication. Befides, where is your proof, that thefe who were 
 evidencing a becoming activity in reformation, were divided in 
 Afa's time ? The very contrary was the cafe ; with the utmofl 
 alacrity they joined hand in hand in the folemn fervice. I 
 never infinuated, that the divided ftate of idolaters and the 
 worfhippers of the God of Ifrael, was any obftruction to co- 
 venanting ; nor the divided ftate of the Seceflion and Relief: 
 But the divifion between us and our brethren, who exercife a 
 becoming activity in reformation work, and will not make the 
 humour of the day, their fupreme rule, is a far more ferious 
 matter in my view j and you give no reply. 
 
 He informs me, p. 65. * Your argument carries much im- 
 * piety in it, as wtii as abfurdity. If divifions will juftify the 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 neglect of one duty, they will juftify the neglect of every 
 duty.* Not fo fa ft, Sir ; the non-performance of an occa- 
 fional duty, when there is no call thereto in providence, does 
 not conftitute a neglecl. It is probable, that like other con- 
 gregations, you have a number who mud be fupported by the 
 liberality of others ; you will furely inform them, that as their 
 poverty juftifies their neglecl of alms-deeds, it will juftify their 
 u. neglect of every duty. You ought to know, that the beggar 
 
 doe? nor neglecl charity ; like covenanting, it is an occafional 
 duty, and he has no call in providence to difcharge it. If you 
 alleJge, that your argument is confined to divifions ; I reply ; 
 Suppofe divifions, animofities, and heart-burnings, prevailing 
 in your congregation ; renting and tearing one another's cha- 
 racters : It will be allowed, to ufe your own phrafe, that this 
 would certainly juftify your neglecling to difpenfe the facra- 
 ment of our Lord's fupper among them, till they were re- 
 conciled : Would thefe divifions, Sir, juftify your neglecting 
 
 ,|| to read, pray, preach, or ufe habile means for their recon- 
 
 .1 ciliarion ? — I leave the reader to judge on which fide the im- 
 piety, absurdity, and ignorance lies : You feem to think that 
 
 | you write for ideots. Divifions juftify the non-perftrmancc 
 
 , of thefe duties, to which harmony is efjential ; but will never 
 
 j] juftify the neglect of any duty whatever. 
 
 In the language of exceflive charity you inform me, * Your 
 ' grand obftruction is internal.' Who conducted you into the 
 
 , fecret recedes of our hearts, to canvafs our internal obftructi- 
 ons ? — You will remember your reply, when you apprehended 
 
 , Mr. Baine's motives were hinted at ; and it is expected you 
 will impartially apply. 
 
 You inform us, that you have often wondered, that the 
 refpectable body of people under our infpection, do not make 
 
 a point of it with us, be. Could I believe this wonder % 
 
 which I cannot, I would anfwer, That your reafoning on the 
 fea fons of covenanting is fuch, as the refpectable people under 
 our infpection cannot underftand. Would you deign to give 
 them argument, inftead of aftertion and banter, you were much 
 more likdy to convince them. < They make thenfelves (fay you) 
 ' a laughing- ft ock to the generation.' A weighty argument, 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 furely ! But our refpectable people, Sir, are not of the fame 
 complexion with ttufe, who make the fhifting applaufe of the 
 generation their firfr, middle, and laft : and although they 
 fhouid be a laughin^-ftock, it may be fome confolation, that 
 Mr. Hurchifon himfelf has honoured them with bis company, 
 as much as any in the age. 
 
 On my fecond obfervation, concerning fcripture example, 
 namely, that there was no vifible impracticability of attaining 
 any of the principal ends of the duty ; he exclaims, * pitiable 
 * excufe.' A far more pitiable reply, however. His anfwer 
 conlifts of three interrogatories ; Were not the feven idolatrous 
 nations ? The idolaters among the ten tribes ? Sanballat and 
 Tobias, vifible obftructions to the end of Jewilh covenanting ? 
 The reader will obierve, that my words are vifibly impra6li* 
 cable : I therefore anfwer, by afking him in my turn, If thefe 
 enemies of the Jewifh covenanters rendered it vifibly impracti- 
 cable for them to glorify their God, by ftrengthening one ano- 
 ther's hands in cleaving to reformation? No fuch thing. 
 Obftrucliom, Sir, are one thing, and vifibly impracticable is 
 another, and a very different thing : There may be nume- 
 rous obftructions, while it is neither impracticable, nor even 
 improbable to furmount them, and attain the principal 
 ends of any duty whatever. If your connexions cannot dif» 
 tinguifh between objlruclicns y and vifibly impracticable, they 
 are truly in a pitiable condition. Your anfwer has not the re- 
 motelt connexion with my argument. — I maintain, that there 
 was no vifible impracticability of fcripture covenanters attaining 
 the end of the folemn duty. O fay you, they had obftrucli- 
 6ns, Excellent reafoning ! Gould you ever expect it to 
 impofe on a child ? 
 
 You inform me, that if my reafoning is jult, the minifters 
 who fwore the bond at Stirling were perjured ; and declaim on 
 the excommunication. — I fee you wiJi me to wrangle with 
 our Brethren ; but you will certainly be difappointed. Accord- 
 ing to your doctrine, it was an unlawful oath •, and however 
 finful to make it, ftill more finful to keep it : but when you 
 prove, that covenanters engage to (land by one another, altho* 
 they fhouid differ fo widely in their judgment aiteiward, that 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 cannot be members of the fame religious body, it will be fome- 
 thing to your purpofe ; but you have referved it for an after 
 publication. 
 
 He concludes his proof of a prefent call to covenanting, by 
 averting, that whatever confiitutes a call to fading, muft like- 
 wife conflitute a call to covenanting ; and, that I fee it my 
 duty to fair, and why not to covenant ? — I reply : Samuel was 
 convinced of a call to fafring, i Sam. vii. 6. but no account of 
 covenanting. Jehodiaphat alfo fatted, but did not apprehend 
 that he had a call to covenanting. He aliedges my people are 
 blinded ; and he may be certain they are fo blinded, that in 
 their view, the example of the venerable Seer and pious Prince, 
 will much more than counter-balance all the quibbling he is tmfter 
 of. They have fo much penetration left, rmwever, aseafily to 
 difcover, that they have only his bare aiTertion, that a call to 
 fading and covenanting are the fame, and fcripture example e- 
 vidently agairift him. He cannot underftand how any who 
 maintain covenanting, can refufe a ptefent call to it, becaufe 
 heavy judgments are inflicted, and further judgments threaten- 
 ed. It is a matter of very little moment to me, whether he 
 underftand it or not. It is allowed, on all hands, that cove- 
 nanting was an unqueftionable duty under the Jewifli difpenfa- 
 tion. The reader may cart his eye on i Sam. vii. where heavy 
 judgments had been inflicted, and judgments ftill threatened, a 
 numerous and victorious army drawing near to battle : The 
 prophet faw a call to fading, but none to covenanting. 
 
 He concludes this feclion with informing his reader, that he 
 and I agree in two particulars ; and he is exceeding happy in 
 the unanimity. The flrft article of unanimity is founded oa 
 my acknowledging, that my views of the importance of cove- 
 nanting might be deficient : This, fays he, is very true. The 
 reader will allow, that I maintain covenanting to be an un- 
 queftionable moral duty ; but Mr. Hutchifon views it in a (till 
 more important light : accordingly he is a (launch coveninter. 
 It is no ea(y matter for a man to imprifon the truth in uflrigjh* 
 tcoufnefs. — His fecond branch of unanimity, is founded on my 
 lamenting, that we do not walk up to our covenant-engage- 
 ments ; and that it may juftly be faid of us, What do yc mart 
 
 G 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 than others ? In thefe fentiments, fays he, I entirely agree 
 with him. Simpletons will blab out the trsth without intend- 
 ing it. I never imagined that a reverend clergyman would 
 jter at his neighbour for lamenting, that gofpel-hearers do not 
 walk up to their principles. To lament that the practice of 
 his hearers does nor correfpond with their principles, is acYing 
 the part of a firapleton ; and therefore, his principles muft 
 either be wretchedly bad, or he can obferve no fucb thing as 
 public falling. Had he been a profane profligate, or an open 
 rake, it was what might have been expected. 
 
 I have now, Sir, confidered your arguments for the prefent 
 performance of covenanting, fuch as they are. Through the 
 whole of this fection, you are a rigid covenanter. Are you 
 not convinced, that you make truly an odd figure, in reviling 
 covenanting as 3 branch of Popish will-wormip, but expatiating 
 on the calls and feafons of performing it ? You will perhaps 
 reply, thdt yen only Like my principles, and argue from them. 
 This is ju|t like a blind man taking colours for granted, and I 
 declaiming at no allowance concerning them — You will allow 
 me, to conclude this fecYton, with uling one of your own 
 phrafes, it is a lucky circura fiance for me, that I have Mr. 
 Hurchifon to anlwer on the feafons of covenanting, and not 
 any of our brethren who differ from us; it has rendered the 
 talk extremely eafy. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 Mr. Hutchifbn y s Arguments again/} covenanting confidered. 
 
 HE propofes, p. 68. a further canvaiTwg of my fenti- 
 ments on covenanting ; while it is only a defence of 
 his i or rati arguments againfr it, a piece of fervice extremely 
 needful. A? feveral of his arguments are of the lefs important 
 kind ; I mall anlwer thefe very fhorrly, that I may be more 
 p rticular on thefe which may be reckoned fundamental. In 
 his former publication, he fets out with laying it down as a 
 firft principle, that every thins pofitive under the Old Tefh- 
 ment was abrogated under the new. This I pofitively tefufed, 
 and obleived, that a fevtnth part of our time dedicated to the 
 
( 5i ) 
 
 A'orfliip of God is pofitive, and binding to the end of lime. 
 He replies. ' Were this doctrine true, the Sabbath could ne- 
 ' ver have been changed from the feven'h, to the firfl Jay of 
 ' the week.' For this, we have only Mr Hmchifon's bnre 
 alTertion an evidence he has nothing better to offer. If is 
 a. downright contradiction to himfelf. Every thing pofitive^ 
 fays he, under the old teffamenr, was abrogated under the 
 new ; but if a fevemh part of our time devoted to the 
 worfhip of God was pofitive, it could not fo much a? be chang- 
 ed from one day of the week to another, while, according to 
 nis own firft principle, its being pofitive was the very reafon 
 why it might be changed. To return your own compliment, 
 Sir, you certainly deferve a medal from the patrons of incon- 
 fiftency. — The reader will obferve, that he exprtfly afferts, 
 chat a ftventh part of our time, or one whole day in fcven t 
 dedicated to the worfhip of God, is not pofitive but mora!, 
 like other branches of the moral law, founded nor in the -will, 
 
 a but in the nature and perfections of God. This is the v>ry 
 fum of his afTertion. Now, Sir, (land forth like a man, and 
 
 , favour the generation with your learned proof of the connec- 
 tion between the nature and ptrfeCKons of Cod, and a feventh 
 
 .. part of our time ; while there can be no connection betwixt 
 the divine perfections, and a fixth or eight part of it. If it 
 is not pofitive, as you aflert, it mufl be moral, and the result 
 of his divine perfections. What divine perfection is ir, which 
 is more connected with a feventh, than with a fixth, tvt-tehtb 
 part of our time? — A controverfial writer i? loofe enough wh< n 
 
 • even his opponent cannot refrain from blufliing at his ahfmdiry. 
 Did it ever enter any man's head till now, that a levemh pert 
 
 / of our time, fet apart for the worll ip of God, was foun !ed in 
 his perfections ; when it is obvious to perlons of the we^keft 
 capacity, that it is pofitive, rtfulting from his will ? fcfad he 
 feen meet, he might have required a much greater proportion 
 of our time. 
 
 I ohferved likewife, that ahhough the moral law ic founded 
 in tie di?ine perfections, the covenant form o' it is a? certainly 
 
 . pofitive ; the Moft High was under no necefliry of nature, to 
 
 J| enter into a covenant of works with his cieaiure. This he 
 
 G 2 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 cannot deny, but anfwers ; * Did not the law receive its co 
 ' venant form in the (late of innocence, before the Old-Tefta- 
 ' ment church was founded ?' Had he fatisfied himfelf with 
 this anfwer, refpecYing the feventh-day Sabbath, which was 
 likewife inftituted in innocence, he might have avoided the 
 glaring abfurdities I mentioned on the former particular. The 
 reader will obferve, thst it is thefe pofitive inftitutions which 
 had place in the Old-Teftament church, concerning which we. 
 now enquire, if they were abrogated. He replies; The law. 
 received its covenant form in innocence; an evidence he was: 
 refolved to fay fomc thing, ho wever foreign to the point in 
 hand. The queflion is not, when the law received its cove- 
 nant form, but if its covenant form is pofitive ; if it had place 
 la the Old-Teftament church, lefpecTiog unbelievers ; and is 
 not abrogated, but has the fame power over unbelievers under 
 the New.Teflament difpenfation ? Not one of thefe you cart 
 deny. It was a pofitive inftitution under the Old-Teftament 
 church, and which has the fame force under the New. Your 
 anfwer has not fo much as the appearance of difproving it. 
 
 I defired him likewife to prove, if he plea fed, that the dif 
 ferent degrees of kindred, within which it was unlawful tc 
 marry under the Old Teftament, were founded in the nature. 
 and not in the will of God. He accordingly attempts a proof 
 namely, that the IfraeUtes were enjoined not to imitate th 
 nations around them in thefe inceftuous marriages ; and there 
 fore they behoved to be a breach of the moral law, becauf 
 thefe nations were not under any pofitive law. This argumetij 
 feeiTiS plainly to import, that every thing for which the Ifraelite 
 weie blamed, for imitating the nations around them, was 
 breach not of any pofitive precept, but of the moral law. \V 
 find, however, i Sam. viii. 5. that when the IfraeUtes defire 
 a king like the nations around them, they are charged m 
 only with rejecting Samuel, but rejecting Jehovah himfel 
 vcr 7. Is it, therefore, a breach of the moral law, for 
 people to defire a king to be fet over them ? The Ifraeliti 
 might certainly be enjoined not to imitate the nations arour 
 them, in any thing which was a violation of any of the pofith 
 laws which God had given them j whereas his argument plai. 
 
< 53 ) 
 
 y imports, that if they were enjoined not to imitate them, it 
 oehcved to be a breach of the moral law : Be the matter as it 
 will, his proof is quice inconclufive. 
 
 1 obterved aKo, that to adore the perfections of God, — is 
 moral ; but to do this by Tinging the poetical parts of fcripture, 
 with certain mufical modulations of the voice, appeared to me 
 to be pofiive. On this ray friend expatiates concerning me- 
 lodious moral modulations of the voice, not only on earth, 
 but in hraven s!lo : Much of a piece with the virtue of a pair 
 of good broad ff)Ouldirs, or the harmony of the fpheres, which 
 fome have dreamed of. It mud be a grofs immorality, to 
 neglecl the diligent fludy of vocal mufic, incapable of exercifing 
 moral modulations of the voice. 
 
 It is readily granted, that it is a moral duty to praife the 
 God of our falvation ; but to do this with mufical modulations 
 of voice to a fet tune, and with particular poetical parts of 
 fcripture, (till appears to me to be pofitive. Perhaps it may 
 be alledged, that singing is a moral duty, becaufe God has 
 required it. I anfwer ; God has required every pofitive as 
 well as moral duty. — The Saviour fung an hymn : I reply ; 
 He obferved the whole ceremonial law, which was pofitive — 
 The apoftles praclifed it ; fo did they pracTife baptifm, and the 
 Lord's fupper, which are pofitive inftitutions. — Mofcs and the 
 Ifraelites praclifed it, before the giving of the ceremonial law ; 
 fo was the feventh-day fabbath, and covenant form of the mo- 
 ral law, before the giving of the ceremonial law : but both of 
 them were pofitive, — Heathens pra&ifed, and recommended it ; 
 no mean argument that it was a branch of natural religion : 
 they like wife praclifed and recommended facrificing ; is this a 
 branch of natural religion ? If mufical modulations of the voice 
 are moral, and elTtntial to the duty of praife, then the man 
 who excells at chanting church-tunes, excells in the duty of 
 praife ; but he only excells in a particular made or manner, 
 which is pofitive- In a word, to exprefs praife with know- 
 ledge is certainly moral; but I know no more morality in 
 Bangor nine, than in a bag-pipe, or fet of organs. My friend 
 may confult the laft qucdion of his Catechifm, which afferts, 
 that we are to prr.ile God in our prayers, not by a church-tune, 
 but afcribing kingdom, power, and glory to him. 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 I obferved likewife, that abflinence, during the time fet a* 
 part for failing, is pofitive, and not abrogated. To this he 
 replies, by liking, I . If I can prove from fcriprure, that ar> 
 Ainence from food, on humiliation days, is a pofitive command? 
 I an!\ver ; when he proves that it is moral, he (hall be attend- 
 ed to ; but I expect he will have the prudence not to attempt 
 it. 2. Do yon carefully obferve this abttinence yourfelf, with 
 your whole family, on days of fitting ? I am not very fond 
 of acknowledging you as a Father Gjnfeffbr, Sir, although you 
 ftvra to exprefs Ibme inclination after it. The queftion is nei- 
 ther what you nor I do, but what is the divine rule. It is- 
 very eafy to learn from your reply, however, that on your 
 falls, you enjoy all the pleafures of the table. Never more 
 fpeak or faft-days, but days of humiliation and feafting. 
 
 Such are his anlwers to the particulars I mentioned as pofi- 
 tive under the old teftament, and not abrogated ucder the new. 
 I. The feicr.th pari of our time, dedicated to the worlhip of 
 God, founded in his nature and perfections. 2. The farm 
 in its covenant form, having no place under the old or new 
 tenement, becaufe it received its covenant form in innocence. 
 3. The Ilraelites might not be enjoined to refrain from imi- 
 tating the nations around them in any thing which was not 
 a breach of the morsl law, however contrary it might be to 
 any of their poliiive inftitutions. 4. Melodious moral modu- 
 lations of the voice in heaven. 5. Humiliation /cwtf days. — 
 Th>j reader may judge if Mr. Hutchifon's anfwers have given 
 the leaft countenance or fupport to his leading maxim, that 
 every thing pofitive under the old teftament, is abrogated un- 
 der the new. 
 
 He now proceeds, p. 70. to defend fome of bis principal 
 arguments againit covenanting ; I therefore requeft the reader's 
 attention till they are a little canvafTed. 
 
 1 o his firft argument I made no reply, as it has no con- 
 flexion with the debate. It is the fura of his fecond argument, 
 thai ah hough covzn.inting was a branch of God's worJbip t it 
 docs cot follow thai it was moral, becaufe many parts of wor- 
 ship ?.re/., : rvi — On this, fuppofing, which is not fait, that 
 covenanting is pof.tive, as he infmuates, I demanded a proof, 
 
C 55 ) 
 
 hat it is abrogated ; for every pofitive inflitution is not abro- 
 ;ated under the new teflament. To this he anfwers, by aflc- 
 ng me. ■ Whether the feventh-day Sabbath is binding H III V I 
 eply ; One whole day in feven is evidently pofnive, and bind- 
 ng to the end of time. The reader will obferve, that the 
 iabbath being changed from thefever.tb to the fir/I day of the 
 veek, is his learned proof, that covenanting is abrogated. I 
 temand a proof, that covenanting is abrogated. He a&s, 
 vhcther the feventh-day Sabbath is binding ftill ? Can the rea- 
 Jer underftand the connexion between the Sabbath changed 
 rom the feventh to the firft day, and covenanting abrogated ? 
 With equal propriety nrght he have sdduced, I Chron. i. i. 
 1 4dam> Sheih } Enofb, as a proof that covenanting was abro- 
 gated. 
 
 As a third argument apainft covenanting, he alTerted, That 
 :he covenant of Ifrael could not be moral, ' becaufe corporal 
 pains entered into the matter of it/ ' Mr. Walker replies, 
 lays he, if their covenanting was a moral duty, it behoved 
 : to include an engagement to obey whatever God enjoined. 
 I reply again, fays he, that though it was a pofitive duty, it 
 : behoved to do the fame thing.' The reader will obferve, 
 and remember it, that IV^r. Hutchifon and I are agreed in this, 
 that whether covenanting was a moral or pofitive duty among 
 the Jews, it behoved to include an engagement to obey what- 
 ever God enjoined ; and to ufe his own language, I am exceed- 
 ing happy at the unanimity : for the undeniable confequence is, 
 that no argument can be drawn againft the morality of it, from 
 any thing bting included In it which God enjoined. It is the 
 foul of his argument, however, that their covenant was not 
 moral, becaufe it included an engagement to obey what God 
 enioined ; for he expredy enjoined them to inflift corporal 
 pains on idolaters in Canaan. 
 
 The resder may try to reconcile Mr. Hutchifon's conceftion 
 and argument wiih one another ; his conctflion, that whether 
 moral or p-Jitive, the Jewifh covenant behoved to include an 
 ■ement to obey whatever God injoined ; his Lftiumcnr, 
 that it could not be moral, became it included an engagement 
 to obey what God exprcfly injcir.cd, namely, wflicTing corpo- 
 
~ r 
 
 ( 5* ) 
 
 ral pains on idolaters in Canaan. Was there ever moral pitiful 
 juggling ! 
 
 He adds ; < If it was a moral duty, that the Ifraelites mould 
 
 * put the Canaanites to death, and to fwear to do this, it was 
 
 * alfo a moral duty for them to put other idolaters to death, 
 
 * and to fwear to do it, befiJes the idolaters of the feven na- 
 
 * tions; but this it was not.' Being confcious that his argu' 
 ment will not bear the light, it is curious to fee how he at- 
 tempts to huddle it up in obfcurify, and deceive his reader, 
 by blending the duty, and the engagement to perform it. To. 
 put them to death, fays he, and fwear to do it. Can there* 
 be no moral engagement or obligation to obey a pofi'ive com- 
 mand r The moral law obliges mankind to. perform every 
 pofitive duty whatever. The duty being pofitive, is no proof 
 in the world, that the engagement to perform it is pofitive. I 
 appeal to the reader, if it is not the plain import of this argu- 
 ment, that it cannot be a moral duty to engage to do what 
 God requires of us, unlefs it is alfo a moral duty to engage to^ 
 do what he does not require!!! — It conld not be a moral duty 
 for the Jews to engage in their covenant, to iriflift corporal 
 pains on idolaters in Canaan, which God had exprefly enjoined j 
 unlefs it was likewife a moral duty to engage to put other 
 idolaters to death, which God had not enjoined. I know of 
 none who ever maintained, that there was no pofitive duty in* 
 eluded in the covenant of Ifrael ; but this is no proof, that 
 their covenant engagements were pofitive. 
 
 He adds ; * Whatever oath is moral, may be 1worn by all 
 ' men, in all ages ; but it was not lawful for the Ifraelites 
 < to fwear to their own fyftem, after it was abolished by the 
 « death of ChriuV I have anfwered this particularly in a for- 
 mer fecYion. It was the fum of the covenant engagements of 
 Ifrael, to believe whatever God revealed, and obey what he 
 required, and as lawful for them to fwear this after, as before 
 the aboliming of their ceremonies. If the covenant of Ifrael 
 could not be moral, becaufe they might not engage to fupport 
 their ceremonial fyftem after God unhinged it ; the fifth com- 
 mandment muft not he moral, becaufe we may not engage K;| 
 fupport indigent parents after God has carried them out of the 
 
 :: 
 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 | world. The appointing or annulling of ceremonies, could 
 rot in the leaf! affect the moral engagement, to believe and 
 obey the Lord. It is the fum of this argument, that the co- 
 venant of lfrael could not be moral, becaufe it included an 
 engagement to obey what God bxpresly injoined, viz. the 
 inflicting corporal pains on idolaters ; at the fame time, he 
 allows, that though it was moral, it behoved to include an en- 
 gagement to obey what God injoined. How harJ a matter 
 to render the legs of the lame equal ! — It likewife plainly im- 
 ports, that although the fubfhnce of covenant engagements 
 is moral, which was the cafe with the Jewifh covenant, to 
 Delieve and obey their God, the fum of thtir engagements: 
 if there was one pofitive duty included in their covenant, the 
 covenant itfelf behoved to be pofitive. But for this you have 
 
 nly afTertion ; a proof was troublefome. 1 apprehend the 
 
 eader will allow, that the morality of the Jewiili covenant 
 is very little affected by fuch unfupported aflertions. 
 
 He had urged it as a fourth argument againft the morality 
 of the corenant of lfrael, that * it was injoined to that people 
 
 I : alone.' I obferved, that I could not well underftand the 
 force of this argument. He replies, * Why then does he at- 
 
 I I tempt to confute that which he does not underftand V Pa- 
 tience, Sir ; whatever opinion you may entertain of yourfelf^ 
 
 . you may be very certain, that I am under no apprehenfion of 
 your getting out of my fight. If a man can meafure your 
 bantering furface, he can be at no lofs to found your depth ; 
 ^generally fpeaking, a child may wade. It was the force of 
 ., your argument I did not underftand ; and for a very plain 
 reafon, it has none. It is very difficult to underftanJ the 
 jjfcnfe of ft ark nonfenfe ; that nothing can be a moral duty, if ic 
 f is not injoined by the word of God, on all the Heathen na- 
 lions. The covenant of lfrael was not injoined upon other 
 nations, becaufe it included pofitive duties, which God did 
 not require of other nations ; but this, inllead of being a de- 
 , cifive proof, that their covenant was not moral, is no proof at 
 . all : for, the mor:il law, being the very fubftance of their cove- 
 nant engagements, ftiled, the covenant itjelf, is^a much more 
 
 H 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 forcible proof that their covenant was moral. The reader 
 fl^alJ «re j refently, that his argument will prove, that believing 
 en Chrifl renouncing our own rigbteoufnefs, refting on the 
 Surety-righteoufnefs, are not moral duties. 
 
 In fupport of this argument, he had formerly fuggefted* 
 that the Heathen were not threatened with punifhment for the 
 violation of the oath of Ifrael. The anfwer was extremely 
 eafy, that according to this argument, nothing can be a moral 
 duty, unlefs we find the word of God threatening the Heathen 
 with punithment for the non-performance of it. He now 
 fhifrs his ground a little; * The Ifraelites were punifhed, foe 
 < breaking the oath binding them by the authority of God, and I 
 « not other nations.' The anfwer is ftill eafy, that if the 
 Heathen not being punifhed for violating the oath of Ifrael, is | 
 a proof that there oath was not a moral duty ; it is plain as 
 broad day, that nothing can be a moral duty, unlefs the word 
 of God inform us of punifhment inftic"ted on the Heathen, for 
 the non-performance of it. If you cannot inform us, Sir, 
 of punifhment inflicted on the Heathen world, for the non- 
 performance of every particular moral duty, this argument, 
 like the reft, is mere affertion. Although the whole word of 
 God is pofitive, as you afTert, it is a moral duty to read it, 
 and hide it in our heart, to believe on a Saviour, <bc. ; but 
 where have we any account of punifhment infiicled on the 
 Keaihen, for their not reading the word of God, or not be^ 
 lieving on the Chrift of God ? The apoftle afTures us, thai 
 the Heathen will not be judged by the law, or written word, 
 cor punifhed for non-attendance to it. It is the fum of youi 
 argument, that the oath of Ifrael was not moral, becaufe the 
 Heathen were not punifhed for the violation of it ; accordingly, 
 nothing can be a moral duty, if the Heathen were not punifhed 
 for neglecting it. A more palpable ficYion never entered anj 
 man's head, than to flate the lift of moral duties, from the 
 punithment inflicted on the Heathen for the non-performance 
 of them. 
 
 In anfwer to this argument, I fuggefted formerly, that if 
 would never be a proof, that the covenant of Ifrael was not 
 moral, becaufe it was not binding on all the Heathen nations; 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 |»r that our covenants arc not moral, becaufe they are not 
 Ending on the favages in America. My friend ftiles this 
 doctrine prettv remarkable ' Ic is doctrine, however, which 
 defy him to disprove. If is a moral duty to read the word 
 >f God, to believe on Chriit, to believe in a three-one God 
 'cconciJed through Chrift. Can you prove, Sir, that the fa- 
 /ages in America, are bound to read the Biole, although they 
 never faw one ? to believe on Chrift, although they never 
 leard of him ? or, that they will be punirhed for rejecting 
 Shrift, although he was never in their offer ? If you cannot, 
 and I apprehend you will have the difcretion, not to attempt 
 it, how then can our covenants be binding on them, fince they 
 include thefe moral duties in their bofom ? And can it ever 
 be a proof, that our covenants are not moral, becaufe they 
 include moral duties, which you cannot prove to be binding 
 on the Heathen ? At any rare, covenanting mull be ftript of 
 morality ; the Jewifh covenants were not moral, becaufe they 
 included pofitive duties, which were not binding on the Hea- 
 then ; ours are not moral, becaufe they include moral duties, 
 which are not binding on favages in the wilds of America. It 
 is a favour, that all is unfupported aflertion. — He expatiates 
 concerning the favages in America being under the covenant 
 of works ; but he mould remember, that it is not their con- 
 nection with the covenant of works, but with the covenants 
 of thefe lands, concerning which we now enquire : and their 
 being under the covenant of works, no proof that our cove- 
 nants are binding on them. He makes ufe of a pretty rem .li- 
 able fimilitude; fuppofe twenty thoufmd American f.vagcs 
 tranfported into Britain, according to ray reafonin.', fays he, 
 our covenants are binding on the reft of the Britiih fubjects, 
 but not on the tranfported favages. But granting your r 
 portation, Sir, what would be the ftrange conleqnence ? It is 
 exceedingly obvious. Can you prove, that while thev refi.td 
 in their native wilds, they were bound to read the Bible, or 
 believe on the Son of God ? You cannot. But it is equally 
 plain, that being tranfported into Britain, as foon as thev coulJ 
 nnderftand a Bible, they were bound to read it. to believe, and 
 join themlelvcs to the church of Chriit, and under the fame 
 
 H 2 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 obligations. Although their transportation has no amazing vir* 
 tue, according to your fenfible jeer, their enjoying the means 
 of gnce would unquestionably lay them under the ftrongeft 
 obligations to read their Bible, to believe on a Saviour, which 
 you, nor no man can prove, they were under before. Youl 
 grand fimilitude evanifhes into fmoke, It is true, the nature If! 
 of the Lawgiver is unchangeably the fnme; but when you m 
 prove that the revelation of his will to Heathens and Chriftianr. c: 
 is the fame, and that the extent of obligation on Heathens andi d 
 ChrifKans is the fame, Heathens bound to read, hear, believe,, 1 
 renounce their own righteoufnefs, <bc. it will be fomething to> |wr 
 your purpofe ; but this you will nor probably attempt — It is 
 the fubftance of this fourth remark, that nothing can be a mo- fo 
 ral duty, unlefs the word of God inform us of punifhment-in. -|al 
 fiicled on the Heathen for the non-performance of it, the abfur- ' y 
 dity of which is obvious to every one. I 
 
 He now proceeds to fome lefs important arguments ; I (hall c 
 therefore anfwer very (hortly. His fifth remark, is a digreiTion I 
 from thomorality of covenanting, to the manner of fixing covenant- J! I 
 obligation. I am no way concerned with this ; I only contend j i 
 that covenanting is moral and obligatory. He replies: * This 
 « is evidently fhifting the point in difpute.' He fhould have 
 informed his readfr, with whom it is the point in difpute ; 
 I have not interefted myfelf : I maintain, that covenanting is 
 moral, and its oblig9tion on covenanters and their offspring 
 moral alio ; for the different manner of fixing its obligation, I 
 Hill apprehend, that it is in part at leaft a logomachy, or ftrife 
 about the propriety of words. 
 
 His fixth remark, p. 72. is to attempt to alTign rcafbns ivhy 
 God required an oath of adherence to his laws from Ifrael. I 
 flill imagine, that this has little or no connexion with the 
 point in hand. But 3s our author reprefents it as no incon- 
 fiderable argument, I (hall flow, in a few fentences, that he 
 has not affigntd a /ingle rtafin for that oath being required. 
 
 It is tht fun of rtafin fir/}, That the Ifraelitim fyftera of 
 government, and their oath was local ; but Chriftianity intend- 
 ed to be thf unherfal religion of the world. — Xou cannot prove, 
 Sir, that their oath was local ; but granting it, could ever this 
 
( <Si ) 
 
 t a rcafon why God required it of them ? I appeal to the rea- 
 der, if this is not your reafoning, the oath of Ifrael was local, 
 HEREFOREGod req-iired it of them ? Can anyman in theworld 
 nake common fen(e of it ? Their fyftem of government, fay 
 rou, was local : But how was this a reafon for an oath of al- 
 egiance I One woulJ apprehrnd that, if their fyftem of govern- 
 nenr had extended to the whole world, an oath had been as 
 lectfkry. It has fel.iom been thought, that a prince's domi- 
 >ions heing extenfive, rendered an allegiance oath unneceflfary. 
 fou have ceminly forgot, that you propofed to afllgn reafoni 
 tfhy God required an oath. 
 
 RcaJ. 2. God gave the Ifraelires their civil laws; and there* 
 
 "ore, as their civil governor, had a right to demand an oath of 
 
 : allegiance from his fubje£ts. — Here you have again forgot what 
 
 you propofed ; inftead of afligning a reafon why God required 
 
 in oath, you only attempt to prove, that he had a right to 
 
 demand it. Befides, your reafoning feems-to queftion his right 
 
 to demand an oath, if he had not fuftained the character of 
 
 their civil magi/Irate. I apprehend that Jehovah's authority 
 
 ; over his creatures, to demand of them whatever he will, is ab- 
 
 j folute, unlimited, and can neither be encreafed, nor diminish- 
 
 | ed by any civil magiftracy whatever. Inftead of afligning a 
 
 ; reafon why God required an oath, you only aflign zjiftitious 
 
 i reafon of his right to demand it. 
 
 ; Reaf. 3. They held the poflcflion of Canaan, on the condition 
 
 ! of profeffing the true religion, and adhering thereto, as is evi- 
 
 : dent from Deut. xxviii. — By confulting the paflage, the reader 
 
 will fee a variety of awful judgments threatened, in cafe of a- 
 
 t poftatizing from the true religion ; and are not heavy judg- 
 
 [ ments threatened and infticled on Chriftians, in cafe of apoftacy? 
 
 : And has not godlinefs the promife of the life that now is ? In 
 
 1 all this there is nothing peculiar to the Jews. But granting 
 
 what he afTtrts, it is rather a reafon why an oath of adherence 
 
 was unneceflary. The more extenfive the advantages, the 
 
 more ample the rewards annexed to the obfervation of the lawi 
 
 of an> nation ; they are certainly in the lefs hazard of difrc- 
 
 garding them, and an oath of adherence lefs neceflary : intereft 
 
 binds them. The Jews having the poCTeflion of the tand flow- 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 ing with milk and honey annexed to the obfervation of Jeho- K 
 van's laws, it was certainly a very powerful motive, of its own 
 kind, to adhere to them ; and an oath of adherence, inftead 
 of being more, was left neceflary on that account. 
 
 Thefe are all his reafbns why Jehovah required an oath of 
 adherence to his laws from Ifrael. Their oath local •, Jehovah 
 their civil magiftrate, who gave them their laws, and therefore 
 had a right to demand it; they enjoyed the pofleffion of Ca- 
 naan, on condition of adherence to the true religion. It is; 
 eafy to (how, were it not for brevity, that not one of themi 
 is facl. But granting them, I appeal to every man of fenfe, 
 if they are the remoteft fhadow of reafons why God required I 
 an oath of adherence to his laws. 
 
 He alledges, p. 71. That I charge him falfely with main- 
 taining, That all old-teftament predictions concerning new 
 teftament worfhip, are to be underftood figuratively, and not 
 literally ; whereas he has only afTerted it of predictions con- 
 cerning fwearing under the new-teftament. It is very poffible 
 I might miftake bis meaning, as I know no reafon for nndec- 
 ftanding old tefhment prophecies concerning (wearing figura* 
 tivity, more than other prophecie? ; and Mr. Hurchilon has 
 affianed none. As this was no branch of my argument, had 
 he refrained, I fliould have given him no more trouble con- 
 cerning it ; but fince he has again brought me to it, I (hall 
 endeavour now to touch the point in difpute, by putting back 
 his own queftion. Can Mr. Hutchifon point out a fingle in- 
 fiance in the whole new teftament, where an old-teftament 
 prediction concerning fwearing to God under the new tefta- 
 nient, is underftood figuratively ? Nay, he cannot. He mikes 
 a noife indeed concerning Ifa. xlv. 23. c Unto me every knee 
 * (hall bow, and every tongue lLall fwear.' He ftrenuoufly 
 maintains, however, that this prophecy does not refpeft the 
 new-tdtament church, but the day of judgment; and yet if 
 mufl fix the fenfe of all fuch old-teftament prediclions concerning 
 gofpcl worflip. By a fingle glance at his reafoning, the rea- 
 der will tee, that he fets out with old-teftament prediclions 
 concerning fwearing to God in new-tcflament worflrip ; and it 
 is the fum of his argument, that here we have a prediction 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 icerning fwearing at the day of judgment, which mud be 
 inderftood figuratively : therefore all fuch predictions concero- 
 go^pel-worfhip mud be underftood figuratively alfo. Can 
 
 reader trace the connexion ? A prediction concerning the 
 y of judgment is figurative, and therefore every fuch predic- 
 tion concerning gofpel wor/hip muft be figurative. Nothing 
 :an be more inconclufive : his work is yet to begin. You will 
 not admit, Sir, of your Bi other's lower, and higher fenfe of 
 old-teftament predictions Although, on feveral particulars, I 
 mull differ as widely from your Brother's fentiments as from 
 yours ; his character certainly entitles him to much better ufage 
 than you have given him. 
 
 Ir is rrue, however, that old-teftament prophecies concern- 
 ing the new-teftament, do admit of a lower and higher fenfe. 
 The evangelift expounds the prophecy, Ifa. liii. 4. * Surely he 
 * hath born our griefs,' of the Saviour healing the dile.ifed in 
 the days of his flefh. "Will you pafs over into the Socinian 
 camp, and maintain that this prophecy will not bear a higher 
 fenfe ? After all the blufler you have made about old-teftament 
 prophecies, concerning /wearing under the new, being under- 
 ftood figuratively, you do nor produce a fingle inftance ; and 
 I apprehend you cannot : Is this touching the point in difpute, 
 Sir ? 
 
 He alledges, that I d'rfplay a little humour of the dunce kind, 
 in attempting to charge him with Popery. I only maintained, 
 that your rule of interpretation will prove it undeniably. You 
 aflert, that to explain one claufe of a verfe literally, and the 
 next myftically, is a grofs pcrvcrfion, confufed, fcnfelefs. Nor 
 do you confine it to fwearing, as you now pretend. It is ta 
 explain one claufe of a verfe, without reflriclion either to pro* 
 phecies, or /wearing. And you endeavour to (how the abfur- 
 dity of it, where one claufe of the verfe does not refpeCt fwear. 
 ing, but facrifice. Now, Sir, lay afide the dunce, and like a 
 man of fpitir, maintain your very judicious rule of interpreta- 
 tion : and allow, that * Take, eat,' mud be understood lite- 
 rally ; and therefore, * This is my body I cannot be figurative. 
 Whatever the humour is, the argument is jpft. 
 
 You iuform your reader, that I underftand an ol !-«ftament 
 
C *4 ) 
 
 prophecy literally, which ought to be understood figuratively 
 and therefore Popery may he found at Pollokfhaws. You a 
 wife enough, however, neither to mention the prophecy, not 
 to prove that 1 roifunderftand it : and if your aflertion will 
 fix a charge, I flatter myfelf with the reader's commiferation. 
 He now proceeds, p. 74. to attack what I advanced on 
 2 Cor. viii. 5. * And this they did, not as we hoped, but firft 
 
 * gave their ownfelves to the Lord.* As I am not yet con- 
 vinced, that every thing is fo be difcarded, which is not ex-: 
 prefly mentioned in the new tefhment ; I only maintain, thai 
 it is not hnprohaWe. this giving of their ownielves unto the; 
 Lord, was by a folemn vow. After our author has expreffed 
 a wonderful fnrprize, and aflerted, that my reafoning is con- 
 fufed and unintelligible, he adds, * As I delivered my fenti- 
 
 * ments on this patfage formerly, and they have not yet been 
 
 * refuted, there is little occ^.fion to enlarge.* I fb^ll lay be- 
 fore the reader, very fhortly, the fum of whot he advanced, 
 together with my anfwers ; and leave him to ju Jge for himfelf. 
 He mentions three particular duties, in the performance of 
 which, they might be faid to give them'elves unto the Lord. 
 
 1. By a profeflion of their faith in CVift, and embracing; 
 the fpiritual worfhip of the gofpel. — I anfwer ; They had aU ■'. 
 ready profefled their faith in Chrift, and embraced the fpiritual 
 worfhip of the gofpel. Unlefs my friend can prove, that the 
 apoftle did not hope, that they would continue to cleave to 
 the fpiritual worfhip of the gofpel, this cannot be the meaning ; 
 for the apoftle did not hope, that they would firft give their 
 ownfelves unto the Lord. 
 
 2. They might give themfelves unto the Lord in the facra- 
 ment of baptifm. — I anfwer; They were already baptized \ 
 and therefore this can by no means be intended, unlefs we fup-% 
 pofe that the apoftle was to re-baptize them. I hope this is, 
 not unintelligible. 
 
 3. They might give themfelves unto the Lord in the facra. 
 ment of the fupper. — It is probable, it is on this particular he 
 alledges I am unintelligible. I reply : Whatever this giving of 
 themfelves unto the Lord imports, it is plain the apoftle did 
 not expert they would do thia firft, before their contribution 
 
( 6s ) 
 
 for the faints at Jerusalem. It is pretty evident, however," 
 that the apoflle was fome confiderable time among them before 
 their contribution was made up He informs us, chap. ix. 2. 
 that he made the forwardnefs of Achaia an argument with them ; 
 and that the zeal of Achaia had a good effect with many of 
 them. Fjora this it is plain, that the apoftle was fome confi- 
 derable time among them, and uled prudential methods and 
 arguments, in order to procure a contribution for the faints at 
 Jerufalem : This is not unintelligible. Now, our author af- 
 firms, that the facrament of the fupper was difpenfed every 
 Sabbath. Is it very probable then, that the apoftle would aP 
 fert, that he did not hope or expect, that they would receive 
 the facrament of the fupper all the while he was among them, 
 till after their contribution was made up and given him ? But 
 he did not expect that they would firft give themfelves unto 
 the Lord, before their contribution. Is this unintelligible, Sir? 
 I am fufpicious you are not very willing to underftand. 
 
 From what I have obferved, it is exceedingly improbable, 
 that it was any of the duties you mention ; at the fame time it 
 was certainly fome folemn part of wor(hip, and very probably 
 a public vow. On this particular, he attempts to fix a charge 
 of inconfiftency, by alledging, that I maintain, that there was 
 no call to covenanting in the apoftolic age, and yet will have 
 the churches of Macedonia to covenant, without a call in pro 
 vidence. If you imagine, that I was fo blind as not to forefee 
 your objection, you are a little miftaken. I obferved, p. 72. 
 of my former publication, * If there was no call to it in provi- 
 ' dence in their days ;' and, with a direct view to your objecti- 
 on, I added, < at leaft among the churches in general? You 
 might have fpared your charge, unlefs you can prove, that it 
 was impoflible for the Macedonians to be in a peculiar fituation; 
 or that all the infant churches, from Babylon to Spain, were 
 precifely in the fame circumftances. Till you prove this, I have 
 fome appearance of confiftency ; and your unfeafonable perfor- 
 mance of duty, is a figment of your own fancy. 
 
 He proceeds, p. 75. to defend a chain of arguments which 
 he had formerly urged againft covenanting. I (hall now cor* 
 fider thefe in their order. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 Arg. i. ' Covenanting cannot be a moral duty, becaufc 
 ' we have no account of it before the conftituiion of the Jewifh 
 4 church.'— I replied, that they might covenant in a more early 
 period, although we have no account of it. On this my friend 
 fpends fome part of his fterling wit ; but, with his ufual can- 
 dor, conceals the rcafon of my aiTertion, namely, that all the 
 account 'we have of religious matters for two thoufand years, 
 may be comprehended in two or three femences. I apprehend 
 that every one will allow, that there were many religious du- 
 ties performed during that period, which are not recorded : 
 Can any thing be more ridiculous than to difcard every thing 
 from the lift of moral duties, becaufe we have no particular 
 account of it in that peiiod ? I expect my opponent will al- 
 low, that this can be no argument againft covenanting ; for, 
 after fome few excurfions of brilliant wit, he iHles one princi- 
 pal account of religious matters in that period an objcure pa/l 
 fage. He certainly could never expect a particular account of 
 every religious duty, in two or three objew e fcntences *. But^ 
 this is only introductory. 
 
 Arg. 2. l The fwearing of religious-oaths cannot be a moral? 
 * duty ; becaufe it was never obferved by the holy Jefus him- 
 < felf.' — As this is one of his fundamental arguments, he fol- 
 iicits the reader's attention, as he could hazard tre dtciiion of 
 the controversy on this one argument. He feems to be con- 
 fcious that it is a hazard, and he is not miflaken ; for inftead of 
 munning him, I, in like manner, (oliicit the reader's attention; 
 
 * How often does our author afiert, that public falling is a moral duty ? 
 Wht re have we any account of this before the conftitution of the Jewiflx 
 church ? — You are exceedingly difcreet, Sir, in complementing me fo fre- 
 quently on my empty Sermon. I hate ingratitude ; but it is troublefome to 
 be always throwing out panygerics on your meffy fcntimental delineation. Once 
 for all, with fubmiflion to your better judgment, you have committed an 
 egregious blunder in the title page. It fhould run, A delineation of the nature ' 
 and genius of the Relief Kingdom. Select your wrangling with other de- 
 nominations, in fupport of Relief peculiarities, and you hive very little be- 
 hind. When the Relief kingdom is concerned, you can ntftle there fo* 
 {cores of pa^ts, with pleafure. Sixty pages fpent in wrangling with others 
 about covenanting, in fupport of the Relief fcheme ; but not one third of 
 thtm on any other particular. When the kingdom you propofed to delineate 
 eomes in your way, it is huddled up at once, as if one had whifptred in 
 your ear, ^uick -work, Sir; there is little pleafure in this, let the Relief kingdom 
 be defended. — A more pitiable performance, ca fucb a glorious iubje#, has 
 Ctldom appeared in public I 
 
 
( *7 ) 
 
 and if I prove not, in the clearefr manner, that even, on his 
 decifive argument, he plainly yields the e u<e, I will give it up. 
 But as he has a variety of particulars for illustration of this ar- 
 gument, I (hall confider thefe in their order, and (how, that 
 not a fingle one of them is to his purpofe. 
 
 Part. i. Covenanting was only an occafional pofitive duty. — 
 He formerly alTerted, that covenanting was efhbl. fried to be a 
 {landing law in Ifrael, until the death of Chrift. Fiom this I 
 was naturally led to conclude, that he maintained it to be a 
 fated duty; becaufe, at that time, he feemed to know no 
 JiftincYion between an zccafwnal and Jlatcd duty ; but to dif- 
 play his eloquence in deriding the diftinclion. He is now o- 
 Dliged, like other men, to have rtcourle to the common di- 
 (tinclion, to extricate himfelf from the labyrinth in which he 
 was entangled. It is only now, Sir, that you liile it an oc- 
 rajional duty ; and I am chargeable vuth fabrication, becaufe 
 jou now fee a neceflity to fhift your ground, and change your 
 Dhrafes. A weighty argument ! 
 
 Part. 2. l Our Saviour was bound to fulfil all righteoufnefs.* 
 [ readily grant it; an interefting truth it is: but, to perform 
 occafional duties, whether pofitive or moral, when there is no 
 rail in providence, is no branch of righteoufnefs wharever. It 
 m not to obey, but to difregard the law ; for the law, or Je- 
 hovah himfelf by his law, requiies us to perform occafional du- 
 ties, only when there is a call in providence. In orcier to fup- 
 port this argument, it was necefary to prove, that the law of 
 God binds us to perform occafional duties without a call in 
 providence. If it does not, the performing of them, infich 
 ' a cafe, is no branch cf righteoufnefs. 
 
 I intended hete, to have given the reader a difiinc"t account of 
 what is neceiTary to conftitute a pcrttcl right eoujhtfs, of vt 
 Mr Hutchifon feems to have no diiYinc*t views ; bur in his fourth 
 charge of error, he almolt exhaufts his Billinfgate oratory, in 
 charging me with maiming the Redeemer's righteoufnds : I 
 fhall therefore pals it here; the reader may cxpeft a diU'mct 
 account of it in the anfwer to his fourth charge of error. 
 
 Part. 3. Suppofing covenanting to be an occafipnat pcftive 
 duty, he {viz. the Saviour) had no call in providence to per- 
 
 I 2 
 
( « ) 
 
 form it during his life. — Here he maintains that the Saviour 
 had no call to covenanting, if it was an occafional pofitive duty. 
 His reafons are : i . It was one deftgn of the Saviour's appear- 
 ing, to put an end to the Mofak oeconomy. 2. The Jewifh 
 difpenfation was on its dearh-bed. 3. It would have been e- 
 vidently acting contrary to the vifible courfe of providence, had 
 our Saviour Iworn to fuprort that tottering frame of things— I 
 Thele are his reafons, and I have no occafion to object to them. 
 He talks like a man of fenfe, in aiTerting, that there can be no 
 call to an occafional duty, when the performance of it would; 
 be running counter to the vifible courfe of providence. He has 
 neglected one effential poinr, however, namely, to (how that 
 thefe particulars did »ot render covenanting unfeafonabie, fup- 
 pofing it an occafional moral duty. Every particular he men- 
 tions is juft as dtcilive a proof, that it was unfeafonabie as 
 an occafional moral, as that it was unfeafonabie as an occafional 
 poji'ive duty. It is the fubftance of his argument, that if JrVifh' 
 covenanting was occafional po/i'ive, it was quite un'ealonable in 
 our Saviour's time, becaufe it included the ceremonial fyfttm, 
 or that frame of things ; but to (wear to this in our Saviour'! 
 time, would have been acting contrary to the vifible courle ot 
 providence. I reply : Suppofing Jewifh covenanting to be at 
 cccafional msral duty, it behoved to include the very fame fyften: 
 or trame of things. I formerly defired the reader to obierve 
 and to remember it, that Mr. Hutchifon and I are ennrer; 
 agreed in this, that whether covenanting is moral or pfiiive 
 it muft include an engagement to obey whatever God enjoins 
 but it is undeniable, that God injotned the ceremonial fyfterr 
 or frame of things, until the death of Grind ; nor does the S*| 
 viour reprove them for adhering to it. It is evident, therefon 
 to a demond ration, that fuppofing it an occafional moral dut] 
 it was jud as much a running counter to the vifible courfe < 
 providence, as fuppofing it an occafional pofitive duty ; fint 
 whether moral or p'fitive, it behoved, in our Saviour's time, I 
 include the ceremonial fydem in its bofom. I am certainly ii 
 debted to my opponent, for proving, in the cleared manne 
 f hat the Saviour had no call to covenanting. He allows, th 
 the occurrences and calls of providence are bne principal metbt 
 
( <9 ) 
 
 fr judging of the feafons of covenanting ; and he proves, in 
 le molt decifive and pointed manner, that whether moral or 
 fxtive^ it would have been running contrary to the vifible 
 •xirfe of providence in our Saviour's day. No argument, 
 urefore, can be drawn againft the morality of it, from our 
 ord's non-performance of it, fince he had no call in providence 
 leieto. 
 
 Part 4. In p. 77. is to prove, that fuppofing covenanting 
 n occaficrtal moral duty, the Saviour had the loudeft calls to 
 erfoim it — Alter what he has already advanced, the reader 
 lay be certain, that he has a difficult tafk in hand. His reaions 
 
 1. Our Redeemer was bound to fulfil the moral law, as a 
 ; .ovenant of woiks, for all his fpiritjal feed. A momentuous 
 ; jrurh ; his engaging and fulfilling, is the very foundation of 
 : 4 poor tinner's hope, in health and ficknefs. life and death. 
 
 nj 3ut does the law, as a covenant of works, bind to perform 
 f occafional duties without a call in providence ? Did the cove- 
 .• nam of works bind Ad^m to perform them without a call, and 
 >o acl contrary to the vifible courfe of providence I Nay ; 
 : apply your argument, Sir, to unbelievers, who are flill undet 
 \ (the broken covenant. Does the covenant of works bind un- 
 : ibelievers to perform occafional moral duties, without a call in 
 i 'providence ? Alms-giving is an occafional moral duty ; does 
 the covenant of works bind unbelievers to perform it, whether 
 an object of chawty is prefented or not; or whether they are 
 I in a capacity to give or not ? How ridiculous ! If the Savi- 
 • our had a c?ll to covenanting, the covenant of works bound 
 i;him to perform it. You propofe to prove, that the Saviour 
 j 1 had a call to covenanting; and you plainly take tha for granted, 
 j 1 which you propofe to prove ; for without a call in providence, 
 
 : the covenant of works neither bound him, nor his fpiiitual feed, 
 1 : to the peiformance of occafional duties. Your argument is a 
 
 1 fhamelefs begging of that which you propofe to prove. 
 
 2. Becaufe his obedience was intended to be a perfeft ex- 
 ■ ampk ;jnd pattern to Chrifiians in all fucceeding ages. You 
 j have certainly quite forgot, Sir, that you propofed to piove, 
 , that the Saviour had a call to covenanting ; you ; a fecond 
 

 ( 70 ) 
 
 time, plainly take that for granted, which you propofe to prove. 
 Do you imagine, that it is a part of a perfect example, to l 
 perform occafional duties without a call, or contrary to the l 
 vifible courfe of providence ? No, certainly. You raufl firft ' 
 prove the call, and then it follows, that it was a branch of a 
 perfect example ; but not otherwife. A perfect example, coa- 
 fifts in the perfett performance of what the law requires ; but 
 the law does not require the performance of occafional duties, 
 without a call in providence. To perform without a call, it 
 not to obferve, but to difregard the law ; is not a per feet, but i 
 an imperfect example. Till you prove, that the Saviour had? 
 a call, your argument is of no force ; but you chufe rather too 
 take it for granted. I am almoft afharoed to detain the reader, , 
 in anfwering fuch filly fophiftry ; but it would pafs for current? 
 coin, if k were not detected. 
 
 3. He had the louden* call, on account of the corruption of 
 the law, and the tranfgrelfion of the wicked. — My friend has J 
 forgot ; that this is as valid a proof, that the Saviour had a call I 
 to covenanting, confidered as a pofitive, as that he had a call 
 to it confidered as a moral duty. The corruption of the law, 
 and the tranfgreflion of the wicked, feem evidently to have been 
 one reafon, among others, of covenanting in the times of Afa 
 and Nehemiah ; and Mr. Hutchifon maintains it was pofitive. 
 I would therefore afk my friend, if the corruption of the law, 
 and tranfgreflion of the wicked, were a fufficient call to cove- 
 nanting as a moral duty, how comes it to pafs, that they were 
 not, in like manner, a clear call to it as a pofitive duty ? His 
 anfwer is at hand ; as a pofitive duty, it included the ceremo- 
 nial fyftem, and to fwear to this, would have been acting con- 
 trary to the vifible courfe of providence. I reply : Confidered 
 as a moral duty, it included the fame ceremonial fyftem, and 
 would equally have been an acting contrary to the vifible courfe 
 of providence, which the corruption of the law, and tranf- 
 greflion of the wicked, could never warrant. Befides, if the 
 Jaw perverted, and impiety raging, will conftitute a loud and 
 clear call to covenanting, fingly by themfelves, without any 
 other particulars, I apprehend it muft be well nigh an ordinary 
 ftated duty, which our author will not now maintain. Error 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 , :»d immorality prevailing, may conflitute a call to covenant- 
 iig, along with other reafons ; but cannot do fo fingly by 
 . <emfelves. — His firft and fecond arguments, are an eviJent 
 ' -gg' n g °* tne qnefrion ; his third afllgns no fufficient realoa 
 '■a call to covenanting ; his proof has entirely failed him. 
 Having obviated thefe objections, fuch as they are ; I fliall 
 . 3w proceed to fhow, that my opponent, even on his deciilve 
 •gument, plainly gives up the caufe. It is the fubftance of 
 . is argument, that nothing can be a moral duty, if we have 
 o account of the Saviour performing it : but we have no ac- 
 ount of his covenanting ; therefore it cannot be a moral duty. 
 r j 3 p. 78. he acknowledges, that the Saviour neither did, nor 
 ^ ould perform tne duty of repentance : If repentance then is 
 1 moral duty, he owns that the Saviour neither did nor could 
 J erform it. There cannot be a more exprefs giving up of his 
 rgument ; repentance a moral duty, the Saviour neither did 
 tor could perform it. 
 In the fame page, in order to prove, that the Redeemer had 
 call to covenanting, if it was a moral duty ; he informs u$ % 
 hat he both recommended and praftifed fafling; and that no 
 nan can prove, that thefe things which are proper grounds of 
 afting, are not proper grounds of covenanting. I have already 
 >bferved, that Samuel the prophet, and Jehofhaphat a mod 
 >ious prince, were both of a different opinion from our author: 
 Soth of them were convinced of grounds of fading, and prac- 
 ' :ifed it ; but neither of them feem to have been convinced of 
 ^ 1 call to covenanting. But granting his argument for a little, 
 i reply ; It will not be maintained, that thefe things which are 
 grounds of per/on a! farting, are alfo grounds of public, or nc- 
 ' tional covenanting. It is only thefe things, which are grounds 
 of public or national fatting, which can be grounds of public 
 covenanting. Perfonal trials may be grounds of pcrfonal fart- 
 ing ; but can never be grounds of public covenanting. Now, 
 can my oppontnt prove, that ever our Lord obferved public 
 or national faftin > ? Nay, he cannot. Ifitisfaid, he could 
 not obferve public national falling, as an individual: I reply; 
 He did not even tall *i h his difciples ; but declares, they had 
 no call thereto. The dilciples of John a Ik him, ll'hy d) ivr, 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 and the P hart fees fa ft often, but thy difcipks fa ft not ? He 
 anfwered, Can the children of the bride -chamber fa ft white the 
 bridegroom is with them ? Befides, whatever directions he 
 gave concerning perfonal fafting, we- never find him as a' public 
 teacher, urging the Jews to obferve public fafting, while the 
 bridegroom was with them, or reproving their rulers, civil or 
 ecclefiaftic, for the neglect of it. This js another moral duty, 
 public national fafting, which the Saviour did not perform, 
 having no call thereto ; and an evidence alfo that he had no 
 call to covenanting, as our author maintains, that the fame 
 things conftiture a call to both. — I can never expect to meet 
 with a more generous opponent, as he feldom propofes an ob- 
 jection, without furnifliing me with a fufficient reply. I am 
 indebted to him for this hint among. others f as it did not occur, 
 till he fuggefted it. 
 
 I obferved, that there are feveral moral duties, included in 
 the fifth commandment, which the Saviour did not perform. 
 This he cannot refufe ; but exclaims, that it carries much im- 
 piety in it. I know no impiety in afterting, that the moral 
 duty of a hufband providing for his fpoufe, or a paienr pro* 
 viding for, and correcting his children, was never performed 
 by the Saviour. "Whenever my opponent is unable to asfwer, 
 and can find no plaufible evafion, he is fure to baul out, im* 
 piety , blafpbemy, or wotfe, if he can find words to exprefs it. 
 He owns, however, that there are da ties binding on us. which 
 it was impoftible for our Redeemer to perform, on account ol 
 his abftractednefs from the world ; as impotfible as to repent 
 of fin, becaufe he had none. But the queftion, Sir, is not. 
 Was he abftracted from the world, which is readily granted; 
 but are thefe moral duties ? and did the Saviour perform them; 
 It is not, Had the Saviour fin of his own ? It is readily grant 
 ed, that he had only his people's fin imputed ; but is repent 
 ance a moral duty, and did the Saviour perform it ? — On ead 
 of thefe, you are obliged to overturn your decifive argu 
 ment. 
 
 I (hall mention another moral duty, included in the fifd 
 commandment, which I expect my friend will not brand mi 
 T/itli impiety for menuoruwg, ajid aJTerting, that the Saviou 
 
C 73 ) 
 
 did not perform it, for he exprefly declined it ; I mean, the 
 duty of a civil magiftrate. When one defired him, Luke xti. 
 14. to fpeak to his brother to divide the inheritance; he re* 
 plied, « Man, who made me a judge, or a divider over you V 
 Thus is another moral duty which the Redeemer exprefly re- 
 fufed, even when urged to it. The reader will obferve, That 
 according to Mr. Hutchifon's own conceffion, there are moral 
 duties which the Saviour did not, could not perform ; which it 
 is impious to mention, and was impoffible for him to perform : 
 and I have mentioned others which he did not perform, nor 
 urge the Jews thereto, and which he exprefly declined. — I afk 
 the reader, if he could more exprefly give up his decifive argu- 
 ment ? Nothing a moral duty, if we have no account of the 
 Saviour performing it ; but allows that there are moral duties 
 which he did not, could not, impious to mention, impoffible 
 for him to perform. His decifive argument turns out a jum- 
 ble of contradiction, that a thing may be, and not be ; is, and 
 is not, at the very fame time. — You endeavour, Sir, to blind 
 your reader by afligning reafons why the Saviour did not per- 
 form this or that moral duty ; fuch as, his abflrafttdnefs from 
 the world, &c. and I have no occafion to object to them : but 
 why, in the world, aflign reafons, as you do, for the Saviour's 
 non-performance of any moral duty, if nothing can be a mo- 
 ral duty which he did not perform ? Your bufinefs, was to 
 enable the reader to reconcile this with your decifive argument; 
 for I am certain, you are the only man in the world who can 
 reconcile them. If it is fufficient to affign a reafon, a3 you do> 
 why the Saviour did not perform fome moral duties; it is very 
 eafy to aflign a reafon why he did not covenant, for he had 
 no call thereto in providence. Your attempt to aflign reafons 
 why fome moral duties were not performed by the Saviour, is 
 an evident giving up of your caufe. 
 
 He obferves, that I own covenanting to be a flrft-table duty; 
 and what was to hinder the Saviour to covenant r And we 
 never find him deftclive in any other fnft-table duty. — To all 
 this, I anfwer ; That I frill maintain, that covenanting is a 
 firfi-table duty, but includes every relative duty of the fecond; 
 and my opponent may prove, if he can, that the non-perform- 
 
 K 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 ance of an occafional duty of the firft table, when there was 
 no call in providence, could ever conftitute a dtfeft, or render 
 the Redeemer's righteoufnefs imperfect, more than the non- 
 performance of relative duties of the fecond, feveral of which 
 he owns the Saviour did not perform. What, fays he, was 
 to hinder the Saviour to covenant ? I anfwer, He had no call; 
 and Mr. Hutchifon himfelf being judge, it would have been 
 acting contrary to the vifible courfe of providence. I readily 
 agree with him, that we never find the Saviour defective, nei- 
 ther in any firft nor fecond-table duty. But however much he 
 is matter of the Englifh language, he muft underftand, that 
 the non-performance of an occafional duty, when there is no 
 call in providence, is no defeSi. The neglect of alms-giving, 
 is no defect in the beggar's character. He has likewife forgot, 
 that repentance is a firft-table duty, and he owns that the Sa- 
 viour did not perform it ; and public national farting is a firft- 
 table duty, which he did not obferve.— He adds, that I have 
 the daring preemption to fay, that it would have been fuper-- 
 erogation, had the Savionr covenanted ; He neglects, however, 
 to inform his reader, that I faid fo, on fuppofition the Saviour 
 had no call in providence to covenanting. I ftill fay, that to 
 perform an occafional duty, when there is no call in providence, 
 is to do more than the law requires, in fuch circumftances ; 
 which ftill appears to me exceeding like fupererogation ; and V 
 do not yet underftand the daring preemption of averting it.— > 
 If my friend, or any other, have invented a better expreffion, 
 I have no objection, if the fenfe is retained. 
 
 I add, that to perform occafional duties, without a call, ifr 
 not to obferve, but to difregard the law of God j for the law 
 does not require the performance of occafional duties, without 
 a call in providence. Is there any preemption in maintaining 
 that the Saviour could not difregard the law ? Nay, I main- 
 tain, that to perform occafional duties, without a call in provi- 
 dence, is to do what the law forbids. We find the Jews em- 
 ployed in mourning, Neh. viii. 9. At this time they were 
 called to rejoicing ; and therefore the Tirfliatha, the Scribe, 
 and the Levites difcharge them from weeping, as being contrary 
 to the law. I am aware, that it may be objected, that this I 
 
 

 < 75 ) 
 
 wis not an occafional kail to rejoicing, but a flated fcaft. I 
 anlwer ; It was a feaft in commemoratio of 'he kind e s of 
 providence. — I add further, the law of God req .ins us to o^«. 
 ferve the language of providence ; and Jhovan threaten- not 
 to build, but to deftroy thefe who do not ; but to perform 
 occafional duties, without a call in providence, is not to ob- 
 ferve, but to difregard the language of it. Is there any pre. 
 fumption in maintaining, that the Redeemer could not aft con- 
 trary to the law of God, by difregarding the providence of God ? 
 My friend is excellent at exclaiming, daring prejumption $ but 
 to fupport his charge was troublefome. 
 
 On this particular, he aliens, It is the conclufion of the 
 matter, that either our Lord's example is defective, or cove- 
 nanting is not a duty of the moral law, — Are you fo blind, 
 Sir, as not to fee, that according to your decifive argument, 
 it is equally plain, that repentance, and the relative duties, con- 
 tained in the fifth commandment, are not moral durVes, other- 
 wife the Saviour's example is defective ; for you own, that he 
 never performed them. On this particular he exprelTes deep 
 regret, that any fliould maim the perfection of our Redeemer's 
 righteoufnefs. I anfwer ; If the non-performance of lome 
 moral duties maims the Redeemer's righteoufnefs, Mr. Hurchi- 
 fon is the man who has done it : for he maintains, that the 
 Saviour did not perform the moral duty of repentance, and 
 feveral moral duties included in the fifth command Do you 
 imagine, that any man in the world can be fo blind as not to 
 obferve fuch glaring contradictions ? It is an undoubted evi- 
 dence, however, that he prefumes his credulous admirer?, will 
 take every thing for gofpd which he aflerts, let it be as con- 
 tradictory as it will. He likewife quotes the Confeffion of 
 Faith, and the judicious Bofton, affrrting the perfection of our 
 Lord's righteoufnefs : But who denies the perfection of it ? 
 Had he done any thing to his purpofe, it was not only to ad- 
 duce the ConfelDon and Bofton, maintaining that the Re- 
 deemer's righreoufnefs is perfect ; but maintaining, that the 
 performance of occafional duties, without a call in providence, 
 was ntctflary to render his ri ( >hteoulne(s p< rtect. Without 
 this, he might as well have quoted the Turkilh Alcoran. 
 
 K 2 
 
-" 
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 Let the reader felec*t the fubftance of this argument, from 
 the world of extraneous lumber, amidfr which he has buried 
 it, and it is this, neither covenanting, nor any other duty, can 
 be moral, if the Saviour did not perform it : at the fame time 
 he acknowledges, that there are moral duties, both of firft and 
 fecond tables, which he did not, could not, impious to mention, 
 impofuble that he could perform them. I afk, if he does not 
 exprffly decide again!! bimfelf, or that the Saviour's non-per- 
 formance of a duty cannot be a proof that it is not moral, fincc 
 he owns there are moral duties which he did not peiform ? 
 The reader may expect an account of the perfection of our 
 Redeemer's righteoulnefs, in anfwer to his fourth charge of 
 error. 
 
 Arg, 3. « Were religious fwearing a moral duty, fays he, 
 ' p. 79. it would have been obferved by the venerable apoflles 
 « of ChriiV — I know no reafon to enlarge on this, after what 
 I have adduced in anfwer to his former argument. Our ac- 
 quaintance with the firuation of the church in the apoftle's days, 
 is nor 1o extenfive, as to enable us to judge as clearly, what 
 were the calls of providence, as our author pretends. As it 
 is generally allowed, that covenanting is an occafional duty, 
 if the apoflles did not covenant, we may conclude, that they 
 had no call in providence. I might pafs this without further 
 renly : But as he mentions feveral reafons why the apoflles had 
 the louden: call to covenanting, if it is a moral duty, I mall 
 very lhonly canvafs them ; they are a matter of very eafy dik 
 cuflii>n. 
 
 1. It was incumbent on them, as minifters af the gofpel, 
 to inculcate and exemplify the duties of morality. — I reply ; , 
 "With refpeel to occafional duties, fuch as covenanting, if there 
 was really a call in providence in the apoftle's days, they were 
 ctruinh bound to exemplify , and take evtry fcriptural method 
 for prevailing with the primitive ChrilHans to praclife it. It is 
 equally uue. however, if there was no call in providence, the 
 appAles were neither bound to exemplify, nor to urge the 
 pr.m. ive Qhriftffige to praclife it without a call. My friend's 
 rebelling is juft, if there was a call ; but this is the very thing 
 he p^opoJes to prove, arjd does not fo much as attempt a proof, 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 but takes it for granted, that they had a call, otherwifc they 
 were n<r bound 10 exemplify. 
 
 He formerly allowed, that Jewifh covenanting was an occa- 
 fiorinl duty, but this argument is a cogent proof, that cove 
 nanring mutt either be a ftated duty, or no duty at all. He 
 Minrains there was a loud cjII to covenanting in the apoftolic 
 age, if it is a moral duty, becaufe the apoftles were bound to 
 inculcate and exemplify moral duties ; but gofpel rainifters, to 
 the end of time, are as much bound, as tke apoftles were, to 
 inculcate and exemplify the duties of morality, it mud there- 
 fore be a ftated duiy while the world ftands. Profound rea- 
 foning ! 
 
 2. The apoftles lived in a time of abounding wickednefs. 
 — This is another proof, that covenanting is a ftated duty, at 
 leaf! till the latter-day glory ; for till that time, wickednefs 
 will abound. Nor can our author prove, that there was any 
 uncommon abounding of wickednefs in the apoftolic churches 
 in general -, and reafons of covenanting are to be ftated from 
 the fnuation of the church within, as well as the wickednefs of 
 thefe who are without. 
 
 3. It is the fum of his third reafon, that the apoftles lived 
 in a time of perfecution and hard'Tups of various kinds.— 
 "When our author proves, that the hard/hips of minifters con- 
 figure a call to public covenanting, this argument will deferve 
 attention. But, perhaps he means, that the apoftolic churches 
 were expofed to perfecution. I ftill demand a proof, that 
 perfecution, fingly by itfclf, without any other concurring 
 circumftances, conftitutes a call to covenanting. I maintain 
 it does not. 
 
 I may add, that although perfecution fhould nfually be at- 
 tended with a call to 'covenanting /in latter tunes ; this is no 
 proof that it was (o in the apoftolic churches. One principal 
 reafon, I apprehend, why perfecution may frequently be at- 
 tended with a call to covenanting, is the following : Ghriftians 
 may be much more liable to entertain fufpicions, that many 
 of there fellow-profefjors will faint, when, in cleaving to the 
 truths of Chrift, they muft encounter danger of every fort, 
 and perhaps look death itfelf iu the face : Moreover, in fuch 
 
( 7. ) 
 
 a fit nation, a more than ordinary degree of confidence in one 
 another may be requifite, to animate and encourage them to 
 cleave to the truth in the midft of furrounding dangers. Of 
 conlequence, a lawful call to give one another all the aflurance 
 in their power, (even of a folemn oath), that they will ftand 
 by one another in cleaving to the truth, whatever may 
 await. 
 
 Let me now, in a few words, compare the fituation of the 
 church in the apoftle's times, and ours. In the former, the 
 members of particular churches were not very numerous ; 
 they were privileged with extraordinary office-bearers, apoftles, 
 evange'ifts, fyc.\ extraordinary gifts, of tongues, healing, <bc.\. 
 the power of vital godlinefs flourishing among them in an un- 
 common meafure and degree. In our times, particular churches 
 are extenfive and numerous ; (nattered, divided, and tearing 
 one another ; extraordinary office-bearers are no more ; ex- 
 traordinary gifts withdrawn ; and the power of vital godlinefs 
 almoft evanifhed. Will any man aflert, that in fuch a fitua* 
 tion, there is no more hazard of mutual fufpicion, no more 
 need of mutual confidence ftrengthened in a time of perfecu-. 
 tion, than in the apoftolic churches ? Perfecution is the only 
 reafon which our author affigns for covenanting in the apoftle's 
 days ; and unlefs he can ptove, that their perfecution occafion- 
 cd mutual jealoufies, weakened their mutual confidence, which 
 he cannot, it is no reafon for covenanting at all. 
 
 It is true, our author has a vety eafy reply to this, p. 109. 
 To require an oath, inftead of removing mutual jealoufies, 
 or increafing mutual confidence ; has a direct tendency to 
 create jealoufies , and deftrcy mutual confidence — The proof 
 of this ; is our author's uncommon acquaintance with human 
 nature, hiftory, and experience ; but all is mere aflertioi 
 There is an old-fafhioned hiftory, however, which 
 not feem to have confulted. It is the plain import of his rea« 
 foning, that when Abraham required an oath of his fervant, 
 to take a wife for lfaac of his own kindred, it had a direct ten- 
 dency to create jcaloufy, and deftroy confidence. The fame 
 mud have been the cafe, when Jacob made his fon Jofeph to 
 fwear, that he would bury him in the lepulchre of his fathers ; 
 
 i human 
 flertion. 
 he doeg 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 n like manner, when Rahab made the fples to fwear to pre- 
 serve her, and her father's houfe. When Jonathan caufed 
 David to fwear once and again, that he would not only deal 
 rindly with him, but with his offspring alfo, it was calculated 
 :o create jealoufy, and deftroy mutual confidence. Nay, for 
 ought I can understand, according to our author's argument, 
 when Jehovah has annexed his oath to his promife, it muft 
 have a tendency to create jealoufy, and deftroy confidence. 
 If men, fays he, may be infincere in a common profeflion, 
 they may be infincere in an oath alfo, and the matter is not 
 mended. At this rate, an oath can be of no fervice in the 
 world. 
 
 It is true, one church demanding a folemn oath of another, 
 may increafe mutual jealoufies, although it Jhould not. But 
 I afk my friend, if he knows no difference between this, and a 
 church convinced in her judgment and confeieoce, from the 
 word and providence of God, that (he has a clear and fcriptu- 
 ral call to covenanting, and therefore voluntarily, without any 
 requifitioa by other churches, applying to the folemn duty, 
 both for ftrengthening her own hands, and increafing mutual 
 confidence with fifter-churches ? Would this increafe jealoufy, 
 and deftroy mutual confidence ? One church demanding a 
 folemn oath of another, in fuch a manner, as to indicate jea- 
 loufy, or fufpicion, has little connection with the queftion. 
 If an oath is not calculated to remove jealoufies, and increafe 
 confidence, the children of men, good and bad, heathens and 
 Chriftians, have hitherto been labouring under a grofs miftake, 
 in having recourfe thereto far that very purpofe. It may be 
 expected they will now be undeceived, and oaths of every kind 
 difcarded, as ferving no valuable end. If a man msy be in- 
 fincere in his word, or a common profeflion, he may likewife 
 be infincere in his oath ; and, according to our author's doc- 
 trine, the matter is not mended by an alfirtcry oath : it is 
 quite unnecefiary. If he may be infincere in his promife, he 
 may be infincere in his oath alfo, the matter is not mended; a 
 promiffbry oath is quite fuperfluous. The hontft Quakers are 
 indebtrd to him. Such is our author's profound realoning ! 
 — It is vain to expect, that a man ftiould either write ratio* 
 
( 8o ) 
 
 nally, or confidently, when he handles a fubjeft he know? 
 nothing of. 
 
 He mentions another proof of a call to covenanting, which 
 I had almoft forgot. The apoftles recommended and practifed 
 other occafional duties, fucla as fafting, and public charity; 
 and why not the fame with refpect to covenanting, if a duty ( 
 of the fame kind ? — Here he plainly maintains, that there can- 
 not be a call to one, but there muft be a call to every occa- 
 fional moral duty, becaufe they are of the fame kind. An i 
 indigent perfon at our door, is a call to private charity; is this i 
 likewife a call to private fading, becaufe a duty of the fame 
 kind? You mention fafting, and public charity, Sir; you 
 have, doubtlefs, fometimes a call to recommend public charity; 
 do you uniformly recommend public fafting at the fame time ? 
 You certainly fhould, as they are duties of the fame kind. If : 
 your reafoning is juft, the venerable apoftles were certainly 
 raiftaken ; they recommended public charity, but no account I 
 of public fafting at ihtfamc time. They likewife recommend- 
 ed public fafting, but no account of public charity at the fame 
 time, which they ought certainly to have done, if according to 
 your argument, the fame thing muft conftitute a call to bothi 
 You certainly entertain notions very different from the holy 
 apoftles. It is abundantly evident, that calls to fafting and 
 charity are different, and fo alfo to fafting and covenanting, 
 I obferved already, that both Samuel the prophet, and Jeho- 
 ihaphat a pious prince, were convinced of a call to fafting, but 
 no account of covenanting. Can Mr. Hutchifon prove, that 
 this might not be the cafe with the apoftles > If he cannot, 
 their recommending fafting and charity, is no proof of a call 
 to covenanting. You fpeak of all the circumftances above- 
 mentioned, but what are they ? downright fictions. What- 
 ever is a call to one, is a call to every occafional duty. You 
 might with equal propriety afTert, that whatever is a call to 
 •nb, is a call to *v sky fiat ed duty. 
 
 He here ftates an objection to his own doctrine, that the 
 apoftles did not covenant, becaufe Chriftianity was not, in their 
 day, a national religion. — I am very little concerned with this 
 argument ; but whatever h in it, his anfwer does not in the 
 
( 8» ) 
 
 lead affect: it. ' For the fame reafon, fays he, they fhould 
 ' not have failed, or performed any other religious duty.* 
 , Becaufe a handful of perfons cannot aft in a national capacity, 
 and perform national duties, therefore they mould perform no 
 ; religious duty whatever. Becaufe Mr. Hutchifon, by himfelf, 
 • cannot aft in the capacity, give out the deliverances, and tran- 
 fadt every branch of the bufinefs of the fynod of Relief; for 
 this reafon, mould he perform no religious duty whatever ? 
 How abfurd ! — He adds, * The duties of God's law are bind- 
 1 ing on individuals, — as well as nations.' — I reply, a variety 
 of national duties are not binding on individuals, when the 
 body of the nation will not concur, neither in perfon, nor by 
 their reprefentatives. It is a national duty to defend ourfe!ve9 
 from an invading foe ; is an individual bound to go forth 
 and encounter them, although the nation, as fuch, give him 
 no affiftance ? Can any thing be more ridiculous ! * Two 
 ' tribes, fays he, covenanted in Afa's reign, when ten tribes 
 
 • had revolted.' — The two tribes, and the ten tribes, were 
 now different Hates, each of them had their king, and fre- 
 quently at war with one another ; and each of them might 
 perform national duties. It is certainly arrant folly, to raife 
 objections which we cannot obviate. But how hard a matter, 
 even for a man of uncommon abilities, to fpeak or write com. 
 mon fenfe, on a fubjeel of which he is totally ignorant ? He 
 likewife repeats his charge of inconfiitency ; but as I have an- 
 
 fwered this fully already, I have no occafion to refume - 
 
 It is the fum of his argument, that the apoftles had a call to 
 covenanting, if a moral duty ; becaufe they were expofed to per* 
 fecution, but this, by icftlf, is no proof in the world, of t 
 call to covenanting : my friend, however, has nothing better 
 to offer. 
 
 Arg. 4. « The fwearing of religious oaths under the gofpef, 
 
 * fays he, p. 8 1 . is not a moral duty, becaufe in that clear, 
 1 full explication of the moral law, given in the New Tefta- 
 ' ment, there is no precept injoining it.' — I obferveJ, that 
 although the New Teltament is more clear in the genial, 
 
 i efpecially with refpeft to doctrines, there are a variety of du- 
 ties as clearly revealed in the Old Teltament as words can cx- 
 
 L 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 prefs them, and covenanting among others ; and therefore the 
 lefs occafion to be explicit in the New. I may add, that feve- 
 ral of them are more clearly revealed in the Old, and fome of 
 them are not mentioned at all in any precept of the New. I 
 have already anfwered his Cob-web defence, on a former par- 
 ticular ; and as he attempts a reply to each of the inftances I 
 mentioned, I (hall fhortly examine it, and leave the reader to 
 judge, if it is not a cob-web defence with a witnefs. 
 
 I mentioned infant baptifm, which is not exprefsly men- 
 tioned in the New Teftament. He replies; ■ Did not Chrift 
 1 give his apoftles, — a commiflion to teach and baptize all na- 
 ' tions V Very true, Sir ; he injoined baptifm in the general: 
 but the queftion refpecls infant baptifm in particular ; is it ex- 
 prefly mentioned ? Some of your independent communicants 
 will probably inform you, that they were firft to teach, or 
 difcipk ''them, and then to baptize them. Be this as it will, it 
 is not exprefly mentioned ; and therefore your reply is nothing 
 to the purpofe. I refer the reader to what I have already 
 obferved on a former particular, as it is befide my purpofe to 
 enumerate the various arguments in fupport of the divine war- 
 rant for infant baptifm ; and I ftill apprehend, that the argu- 
 ments drawn from infant circumcifion are unanfwerable. 
 
 I mentioned fecret and focial prayer every morning and 
 evening. With refpecl to family worfhip, he replies, That 
 < Chrift praying with his difciples, as a father with his family, 
 ' is an excellent precedent for family worfhip/ — Perhaps fomc 
 may apprehend, that it is as like a precedent for teachers to 
 pray with their ftudents. I afk, Where have we any account 
 of this every morning and evening? It is this, which 
 it was your bufinefs to prove. Befides, where is your cleat 
 precept injoining it ? for this is none. — * We read alio of 
 
 * Cornelius, fays he, that he feared the Lord with all his houfe.' 
 And is this a clear precept injoining family worfhip everj 
 morning and evening ? I may as well afTert, that it is s 
 precept injoining covenanting ; for it is no precept at all. — 
 He /dds, 4 We read of fevtral pious perfons who had a churcr 
 
 * in their houfe, which Mr. Henry and others explain of theii 
 <■ own families, joining together in the duties of religion. 
 Bui is this a precept for family worfhip ? I may as well affirm 
 
 
( 8 3 ) 
 
 that it is a precept for a church-covenant ; it is no precept at 
 all : and Mr. Henry's opinion only conjecture ; others are of 
 opinion, that Aquila, of whom this is afTerted, was a public 
 teacher, and public worfnip intended. — He adds, Chriftians 
 are commanded to pray with all prayer , &c. But one who 
 denies family prayer, would probably inform him, that ihis 
 precept can only include that kind of prayer which God has 
 injoined ; and that he mufr" prove, that God has required fa- 
 mily prayer, before this command can be any proof of it : and 
 perhaps he may need the afliftance of the Old Tefbment con- 
 cerning the dwellings of the righteous, and families which call 
 not on God's name. 
 
 With refpeft to fecret prayer, he replies, ' Had he read 
 4 the fixth chapter of the gofpel of Matthew, with the atten- 
 * tion of zfcbool-boy, he would have feen Chrift recommend- 
 ' ing fecret prayer to his difciples.' — Here I cannot refrain 
 from mentioning my friend's candour and ftricl attachment to 
 truth. He plainly aliens, that I did not attend to the fixth 
 of Matthew ; whereas, I obferve, i Secret prayer is exprefly 
 ' mentioned in the New Teftament/ with a view to the very 
 fcripture he quotes. Befides, what I had in my eye, was 
 fecret prayer every morning and evening ; and that no reader 
 whatever, much lefs a clergyman, might miflake undefignedly, 
 the words every morning and evening, are in capitals. Now, 
 Sir, if a fchooLboy cannot diftinguifli between fecret prayer in 
 the general, and every morning and evening, he deferves to 
 be whipt for a dunce. 
 
 My friend is fo candid, however, that in reciting my words, 
 and with quotation marks, he not only omits the different 
 characters, but the word every, on which the fenfe evidently 
 turns, is dropr altogether. I have no objection to dropping a 
 branch of a (entence for brevity, in a quotation, when the 
 fenfe is entire : Bur to drop the very words on which the 
 fenfe hinges ; a fchooLboy mull laugh at the filly chicanery; and 
 a man who has any lort of regard to common candor, mull 
 deteft it. Where, Sir, do yon find lecret prayer mentioned 
 every morning and evening ? This is the qucftion \ and you 
 never once look nigh it. 
 
 L 2 
 
( 2 4 ) 
 
 I obferved, that we have no precept in the new teftament 
 enjoining family fafting — He anfwers, * Paul recommended it 
 1 to hufband and wife to give themfelves to falling, which 
 
 * feemp, fays he, to have been in a family capacity.' His clear 
 new-teftament precepts are dwindled into afeems to he. The 
 Macedonians gave their ownltlves to the Lord, and hfeems to 
 have been a public vow. — 1 obterved, that hufband and wife 
 are exhorted to give themfelves to fafting, which he 1 ke.vife 
 conceals*, and to me it Teems to have been in ? ptrfon) capa- 
 cify, and I have the concurrence of the judicious Button and 
 others. c Faffing was exemplified by Chriit himfelf, fays he, 
 
 * and by his apoftles.' It is true, we read that our Lord 
 fafted forty days and forty nights ; but I demand a proof that 
 it was a pjrt of his relive obedience, and a pattern to us ; and 
 it was neither in a family capacity, nor is it a new-teftament 
 precept ; and therefore no proof of your afTertion — I nkewife- 
 demand your proof, Sir, that the apoftles fafted during our 
 Redeemer's tabernacling in out world ; that the children of the 
 Bride-chamber fafted while the Bridegroom was with ihem ; or> 
 that they fafted in a family capacity after ? Where is it men- 
 tioned in the new teftament ? and though it were, is it a pre- 
 cept enjoining it ? This proof is Is me on every fide. 
 
 He likewife obferves, That fafting was publicly obferved, as 
 
 we read, A&s xiv. 2 3. ' And when they had ordained them elder 
 
 * in ever? church, with prayer and fafting.' He propofes, in op 
 
 pofition to what I had afTerred, to adduce new-teftament precept! 
 
 enjoining family fafting. Well, they fafted publicly at the ordi 
 
 nation of miuifters in the churches; and the conclufion mul 
 
 needs be, that this is a new-reftament precept enjoining famU 
 
 fafting. Did the reader ever hear any thing more ridiculous! — H 
 
 mentions Anna the prophetefs fafting night and day. But ca 
 
 you prove, Sir, that the had a family : Or do you really thin 
 
 that her family fafted night and day ? I apprehend it will re; 
 
 clily be allowed, that it was perfonal fafting •, as it is not fai 
 
 her family fafted, but herfelf. Bcfides, the manner of exprc 
 
 fion feems to imply fuch conftancy and perfeverance, that 
 
 may be queftioned, if it is the duty of a whole family to be i 
 
 conftantly employed in fafting. If he only find the woi 
 
 fafting in a text, it is a clear precept enjoining family faftin 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 Conclufive reafoning ! — I mentioned Zech. xiii. 12. as much 
 clearer with refpect to family farting. He replies, * This is a 
 
 * prophecy, not a precept.' — I am obliged to you, Sir, for the 
 hint ; for you have fcarcely mentioned a precept in all your 
 infwer. This is an old-tenement prophecy, however, refpect- 
 ing new-teflame nt times ; and points out family failing more 
 clearly than any new-teftament writer has done, which is all 
 that I sflerted. Whereas, you maintain ncw-teftaroent pre* 
 ctpti enjoining, but examples and drained confequences the fub- 
 ftance or i-ll \ou adduce. 
 
 It would have been much better, to have patted by this par- 
 ticular, as unworthy of vour'Ubour, or the attention of man- 
 kind : you 1 labour difcovers in the tleareft manner, that you 
 can make no tolerable reply. — Thefe are the particulars I ad- 
 duced, not one of them is exprefiy enjoined in the new tefta- 
 ment ; if covenanting mull be difmiffed for this rtafon, it will 
 travel in decent company. 
 
 Ke now proceeds to defend a lefs important argument againfr. 
 'covenanting confuting of two branches. 
 
 1. ■ Duties truly moral, force a fenfe and imprefllon of their 
 c obligation upon bad men.' — This argument is quite defective, 
 unlets he mean, that every moral duty forces a fenfe of its 
 
 • obligation upon the confeiences of wicked men. If this is the 
 cafe, the knowledge of wicked men mud be as extenfive as the 
 law of God ; for duties cannot imprefs their conscience unlefs 
 they know them ; and of confeqivence, wicked men have filter- 
 ed much lefs in their intellec'hials by the fall than good men, if 
 they have fuffered any thing at all — It is the fum of this branch 
 of his argument, jome metal duties iti ike the confeiences of 
 wicked men, and therefore nothing can be a moral duty which 
 does not : a palpable fophifm ! — Befides, is he certain, that 
 covenanting has never imprefTed the confeience of a wicked 
 man ? 
 
 2. i But religious fwearing does not, in many cafes, carry 
 i home a fenfe of its obligation on good men.' — If this argu- 
 ment were of any importance, it is fufficient to reply, That 
 covenanting has, in may cafes, carried home a fenfe of its o- 
 bligation on good men ; and his argument feems to grant, that 
 in fome cafes it may : But it is of no weight on either fide 
 

 ( 86 ) 
 
 It evidently makes the feelings and imprefflons of good men, 
 which may frequently cla(h with one another, an argument a- 
 gainft the morality of covenanting, and of confequence a tefi 
 of the morality of duties. I obferved this formerly ; anJ my 
 friend (riles the charge ungenerous; but repeats his alTertion in 
 language (HI I as exprelTive. The reader may hear his own 
 words. ■ If the new nature is the law of God engraven upon 
 « the hearts of all good men, it is furprizing, that rhe law of 
 ' covenanting by (wearing, mould not be found written there 
 « alfo, fo as to be felt, as well as other moral duties.' — What 
 can be more exprefs, written^ as to be felt, and becaufe it is 
 not felt by fome good men, with refpeel to covenanting, it 
 cannot be a moral duty ; but (till, it is ungenerous to alledge, 
 jthat its being felt, is made a tefl o f morality. The plain lan- 
 guage of it is this, we are quite divided in our judgment, let 
 the fee lings oft fome good men decide the matter. 
 
 If all good men feel, and are imprefftd with every import* 
 ant moral duty, how comes it to pas, that many good men J 
 differ about the morality of the Sabbath ; church-government, 
 a capital mean of divine inftitution ; and church-fellow fhip ? 
 If Mr. Hutchifon's argument proves any thing, it will go a 
 great length to prove, that the obfervnion of the Sabbath, 
 church government, and church fellowship, are not moral.— 
 Add to this, that (ome good men have affirmed, that the mo- 
 ral law does not make it the duty of finners to believe in Chrifr, 
 fuch as Brown and Gill. Will Mr. Hutchifon maintain, that 
 the morality of thefe important duties is either overturned, 
 quelVionable, becaufe good men have not found their confeiences 
 imprelTed with it. 
 
 I fliali again remind him of the apoftle's declaration, that 
 while here, we know but in part ; and therefore if the feelings 
 of good men are as extenfive as the law of God, they muft 
 exceed their knowledge, and accordingly are impreffions which 
 are not founded upon the word of God, nor influenced by the 
 knowledge of it. I have no objection to allow him the unmo 
 Iefted poflTeffion of them. — This argument is exceedingly well 
 adapted to thefe, who are more concerned about what gooa 
 men have faid concerning this or that, than what the ivord oj 
 Cod declares concerning it ; and who mean to travel to heavec 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 with the fayings of good men for their ftaflf, leaving the faying* 
 of God's word to others. 
 
 He allows, that the godly may be ignorant of fome moral 
 duties ; ' but thefe are, for the moft part, the more deep and 
 
 n 1 inward duties of the divine law.' He beft knows what he 
 means by deep duties; aad although covenanting have an ex- 
 ternal part, it reaches the foul or inward man, as much as any 
 
 « other moral duty. — He adds, ' The more vifible duties of the 
 ' moral law, which men are to perform, in a public and focial 
 ' capacity, are exprefTed in the word of God fo clearly, that 
 
 * he that runs may read them.' — This, Sir, is certainly a vi- 
 fible ramble. I afk your proof, that the word of God is more 
 
 > exprefs concerning vifible public duties, than it is concerning 
 j private and perfonal duties ; or that Chriftians are more agreed 
 either in their judgment, or in their feelings and impreflions 
 concerning the one than the other. It is true, however, that 
 covenanting is exprefTed as clearly in the word of God, as you 
 aiTcrt, unlefs the old teftament is ftruck off from being any part 
 of the word of God. He defires me to confider if I have not 
 made the feelings of men the rule of duty, when 1 make the 
 ability of Heathens, <&c. I am indebted to him for furnifhing 
 me with an anfwer. He allows that I fpeak of the ability \ not 
 of feelings of Heathens ; and 1 never yet confidered unfcriptural 
 feelings, and blind imprefpons , as any part of the ability either 
 of Heathens or Chriftians. It is falfe, however, that I make 
 either the ability or feelings of Heathens, the rule of their duty. 
 But I pafs this, as I will meet with it afterward. 
 
 He concludes his train of reafoning againft covenanting, with 
 another argument, evidently of the lefs important kind. ' The 
 ' very contentions which have prevailed among Chriftians, con- 
 ' cerning the moral duty of fwearing religious covenants, is 
 1 an argument of confiderable weight againft the morality of 
 
 * fuch oaths.' I replied, that I might as well urge it as an 
 argument of confi derable weight in favour of covenanting ; be- 
 caule men of fubtile heads, and unfancTified hearts, have kfc 
 little or nothing incontroverted, which appeared to me fufScietU 
 to take off the confiderable forc.e of his argument. And as his 
 Mluftration turned principally, if not entirely, on fecood-ubk 
 duties, I obleived, that he lhouU remember, covenanting is a 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 firfkable duty. He replies ; « But why did he not remember 
 « this himfelf, when he argues, p. 64. from fecond-table duties 
 
 < againft Chrift's covenanting, which is a firft-table duty ?'— 
 The anfwer is plain and eafy : If I did not remember it, Mr. 
 Hutchifon is to blame for ftating his argument in fuch a manner 
 as does not confine me to firft, more than to fecond-table du- 
 ties. Had he ftated his argument, that nothing could be a 
 moral duty, of the firft table, which was not exemplified in 
 the life of our blefled Redeemer, it was then requifite that I 
 mould have confined myfelf to firft-table duties, not performed 
 by the Saviour. But as he makes no fuch limitation, affirming 
 peremptorily, that he queftions the morality of any duty (with. 
 out any reftriction to the firft more than fecond-table) which 
 was not exemplified by our divine Redeemer ; there was no 
 reafon in the world, why I fhobild confine myfelf to duties of 
 the firft table. Every one muft fee, that a fecond-rable duty, 
 not exemplified by our Redeemer, as effectually overthrows his 
 argument, as a duty of the firft table. If he could not ftate 
 bis argument to fuit his purpofe, it was not my bufinefs to rec- 
 tify it. Befides, I have mentioned duties of both tables, which 
 our Redeemer had no call to exemplify; and Mr. Hutchifon- 
 cannot deny it. It is but wafting time, to anfwer fuch filly 
 quibbles. It was every way to my purpofe to remind him, that 
 covenanting is a firft-table duty, as his reafoning hinged on fe- 
 cond-table duties ; and the argument from the one to the other 
 is not, in every cafe at leaft, conclufive. 
 
 He adds, ' It is certain, that Proteftants in general, are much 
 
 * more agreed about the duties of morality, than about many 
 
 < of the doctrinal points of religion. None, I fuppofe, will 
 
 < deny this, but perfons fo filled with prejudice that it is need- 
 
 * Jefs to reafon with them.' He fhould have reftricted his af- 
 fertion to fime moral duties; for none, I fuppofe, will main- 
 tain, that Proteftants may differ about die doctrines of religion, 
 without differing about fome moral duties alfo; but fuch as 
 maintain that the doctrines of religion are mere /peculations. 
 Every doctrine of Chriftianity has its correfponding moral duty ; 
 and if Proteftants differ about the one, they muft of necefTuy 
 differ about thf other alfo. 
 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 It is his argument, that contentions prevailing among Ghri* 
 ilians ;jbout duties, is an argument of conlidenble weight a- 
 gainft the morality of them ; and a branch of his illustration, 
 that they are more agreed about the dunes of morality, than 
 about the do&rines of religion. Would the leader fee the 
 plain import of all this ? Very furious contentions have pre- 
 vailed in the churches concerning the fuprsme Deity of the great 
 God our Saviour ; but according to his illuftration they may, 
 for all this, agree about the correfponding moral duty of ho- 
 nouring the Son, even as they honour the Father. The very 
 reverfe is true ; their contentions muft, in the nature of things, 
 equally refpecl the doctrine, and the correfponding duty. But 
 according to his reafoning, their contentions are an argument 
 of confiderable weight againft the morality of honouring the 
 Son, eves as we honour the Father. — Prote.'ftants have con- 
 tended keenly about the doctrine of original depravity ; and 
 can they poilibly agree concerning the correfponding moral duty 
 of bewailing, mourning over our natural impurity ? Can the 
 man who denies the doctrine of original (in, bewail original 
 defilement ? But according to his reafoning, their contentions 
 are an argument of confiderable weight againft the morality of 
 confefling and bewailing original depravity. — Contentions have 
 prevailed about the Redeemer's all perfect righteoufnefs being 
 our only and complete juftifying robe, and of confequence, a- 
 bout the correfponding moral duty of difel aiming all our own 
 iighteoufneiles as filthy rags, in point of juftification. — According 
 to his reafoning, thefe contentions are an argument of confider- 
 able weight againft the morality of difclaiming our own doings. 
 
 I have mentioned thefe particulars, not only to refute his ar- 
 gument, but to (how the abfurdity of leparating doctrines and 
 duties. Contentions among Proteftanrs about dofhines and 
 duties, can be no argument againft the truth of the one, or 
 the morality of the other ; fop, if fo, numerous are the doc- 
 trines and duties alfo which muft be difcarded. If covenanting 
 muft be difmiiled on this account, according to my friend's ar- 
 gument, it muft have a numerous train of attendants. It is 
 true, <as he alledges, that Heathc?s may be agreed about fome 
 moral duties, and Chriftians about a greater number; but 
 
 M 
 
( 9° ) 
 
 while there arc a variety of doctrines and duties alfo, which have 
 been, and rtill are matter of keeneft contention in the Chriflian 
 churches, his argument is of no avail. I (hall therefore difmifs 
 it, as I apprehend it will not be eafy, even for good men to feci 
 ihc force of it. 
 
 Such is his train of reafoning againft covenanting ; and I 
 mall now prefent to the reader, a fhort view of his arguments, 
 which have any appearance of reafoning, and which he feems 
 to consider as moft decifive. 
 
 i . Covenanting among the Ifraelites was not moral, but 
 pofitive ; becaufe corporal pains entered into the matter of their 
 covenant. 
 
 2. It was pofitive and not moral ; becaufe it was injoined 
 ..to that people alone, and they were punifhed for breaking the 
 
 oath binding on them by the authority of God, and not other 
 nations. 
 
 3. The fwearing of religious oaths cannot be a moral duty; 
 becaufe it was never obferved by the holy Jefus himfelf. 
 
 4. Were religious fwearing a moral duty, it would have 
 been obferved by the venerable a pottles of Chrifl. 
 
 5. The fwearing of religious oaths, under the gofpel, is 
 not a moral duty, becaufe in that clear and full explication of 
 the moral law, given in the New Teftament, there is no pre- 
 cept injoining it. 
 
 Thefe are all bis arguments which have any Jhadow of rea* 
 foning, and on which he feems to lay the greateft weight. I 
 fhall, in like manner, prefent to the reader, a fhort view of 
 my reply. 
 
 1. 'Whether covenanting among the Jews, was moral or 
 pofitive, it behoved to include an engagement in the flrength 
 of grace, to obey whatever God injoined. — Mr. Hutchifor 
 exprefly allows it. But it is the fum of the firft of thefe ar- 
 guments, that the covenant of Ifrael could not be moral, be- 
 caufe they engaged to obey what God had exprefly injoined ; 
 for Jehovah peremptorily commanded them to inflict corporal 
 pains on idolaters in Canaan. Although it was moral, it be- 
 hoved to include corporal pains ; but it could not be moral, 
 fays he, becaufe it included them. A more evident contradic- 
 tion, was impracticable. 
 
( 9i ) 
 
 2. The covenant of Ifrael was injoined to that people alone, 
 becaufe it included pofirive duties, which GoJ did not require 
 of other nations ; but this no proof that it was not moral, 
 when the ten commandments were the very fum of their cove- 
 nant engagements. — According to this argument, to read the 
 word of God, to believe on a promifed Saviour, to worfhip a 
 three-one God, reconciled in Ghrift, cannot be moral duties, 
 for thefe were as much injoined on that people alone, under 
 that difpenfation, as their covenanting was. Nor can reading, 
 hearing, believing on Ghrift, be moral duties, if nothing is 
 moral, for the non-performance of which, the Heathen are not 
 punifhed. — According to the fecond of thefe arguments, read- 
 ing, hearing, believing on a Saviour, renouncing our own 
 righteoufnefs, are not moral duties, for the Heathen will not 
 be punifhed for the non-performance of them. 
 
 3. It is the fubftance of the next argument, that nothing 
 can be a moral duty, if we have no account of the Sjviour 
 
 performing it After he has made a prodigious bluhVr about 
 
 this argument, he totally overthrows it. He owns that shere 
 are moral duties, both of the firfl: and fecond table, which he 
 did not, could not, impious to mention, impoffible for the 
 Saviour to perform them. He could not more exprefly give 
 up his argument ; nothing a moral duty which the Saviour did 
 not exemplify, but moral duties which he owns he did not, 
 could not exemplify. I have mentioned others, fuch as public 
 falling, and the duties of the civil magiftrate, which he ex- 
 prefly declined when urged thereto. He likewife alliens reafons 
 why fome moral duties were not performed by our Redeemer, 
 fuch as, his abftraclednefs from the world. But the qu< ftion 
 is not, was the Saviour abftracled from the world, but are thefe 
 moral duties ? and did the Redeemer ever perform their ? 
 But why, in the world, affign realons for ne S ivioufs non- 
 performance of fome moral duties, if according to his argument, 
 nothing can be a moral duty, if the Saviour did not exemplify 
 it i The very attempt to affign reafons why any moral dury 
 was not performed by our blelfed Lord, is an exprtfs giving 
 up his argument. 
 
 4 The next of thefe arguments, viz that it was not ob- 
 ferved by the venerable apoflles, is of no force without a proof 
 
 M 2 
 
( 9> ) 
 
 that they had a call thereto in providence. He is confeious of 
 this, and attempts a proof. 
 
 (i.) It was incumbent on them, fays he, to inculcate and 
 exemplify the duties of morality. — But with refpecl to occa* 
 fimal duties, he plainly takes that for granted, which he, pro- 
 poles to prove ; for if the apoftles had not a call in providence, 
 it \v.^s not incumbent on them to exemplify, or inculcate on 
 others. He muit flrft prove that they had a call, and then it 
 was incumbent to exemplify, but not otherwife. He firft 
 takes it for granted that they had a call, and then he proves 
 that they had one. 
 
 (2.) Tie apoftles, fays he, lived in a time when wkkednefs 
 abounded. — If this prove any thing, it will prove a call to 
 covenanting, as a ftated duty, till the latter-day glory. Till 
 that time wickednefs will abound. 
 
 (3.) The apoftles were expofed to much perfecution. — Per- 
 secution will never, fingly by itfelf, conftitute a call to cove- 
 nanting, without other concurring circumftances. The church 
 may be labouring under perfecution, and a variety of circum- 
 ftances render covenanting unfeafonable. This argument is of 
 no force, without a proof that the apoftles had a call to cove- 
 nanting, in which he has entirely failed. 
 
 5 According to the fifth of thefe arguments, nothing can 
 be a moral duty, if there is no precept injoining it in the New 
 Teflament. — In anfwer to this, I obferved, that infant baptifm, 
 fecret and family prayer, every morning and evening, family 
 failing alio, and o.her dudes which might be mentioned, none 
 of them are injoined by aoy precept in the New Teflament. 
 "When Mr. Hutchifon attempts to prove that they are injoined, 
 he adduces little or nothing, but exaaiples and confequences, 
 inuead of precepts injoining. It is true, pertinent approven 
 examples are allowed to ht- rquivalent to a precept ; but how 
 impei linent are his examples ? Public fafling at the ordination 
 of rriniflers, an example for family fa fling ; can the reader 
 discover the connrclion ? 
 
 Thele are all his arguments againft covenanting which de- 
 fetve any attention, and I can, with all freedom, fubmit it to 
 the reader's judgment, if he has lupported a Tingle one ofthem. 
 I judged it nectflary to give this fummary of his reafoning, be- 
 
( 93 >. 
 
 ciufe he has fo interfperfed it with extraneous ftories, and falfe 
 charges, that before I could anfwer thefe, the reader is in hazard of 
 lofing a connected view of the argument. Nor is there a fingle 
 fentimenr in his illuftraion, however foreign to the purpofe, 
 which I have knowingly overlooked. As I am not confcious of 
 difficulty in anftvering any thing he has advanced, the reader 
 is fumimed with a reply to everv particular. Thus it appears 
 that his arguments arc q»»iie inconclufive; and covenanting is 
 likely to maim* n lorn* nv-afure of credit, till more folid argu- 
 ments againl> it ^rc adduced, till it is attacked by a more for- 
 mic .hie foe 
 
 He feuns now to be confcious, that his arguments are not 
 as c"onclufive as he prereoded. Ar. the conclufion of a former 
 publication, we hud a hideous noi'.e concerning the mifchicf 
 this controvcrly would work in the Seceilion, the rifque their 
 character would run who woulJ venture to oppofe him. All 
 this is now fet sfide; he feems now to have learned, that if 
 there i? a proper time for boafting, it is when the armour is 
 put off. Like his fellow fimpleton, he concludes his attack on 
 covenanting, by informing the public, that he has delivered his 
 fentiments on the negative fide of the queftion, that others have 
 taken the affirmative, and the reader mull judge for himfelf. 
 Providing that the word of God, and not popular prejudices, 
 or feelings and impreffions, inconnecled with the knowledge of 
 the word, is allowed to be the touchftone, I readily agree, 
 that the reader fhould judge between us. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 Mr. Hutchifon's fentiments en covenanting, by a foltmn I r ow 9 
 confidered ; and his charge of bloody Principles repelled. 
 
 "IN a former publication, I had the pleafure to obferve, that 
 Mr. Hutchiijn is not a dated enemy to covenanting in ge- 
 neral. In his Delineation, he gives a draught of a covenant, 
 the matter, fubfeription, occafion, and defign of ir, all which 
 he highly applauJs ; only the formality of an oath is rejected. 
 I have now the pleafure to inform the reader, that he is ad- 
 vanced a (lep further j he now admits of covenanting by a 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 public folemn vow. "We are now well nigh agreed ; for, if 
 public covenanting is allowed, it is a matter of lefs moment to 
 me, whether it is by a folemn vow, or with the formality of 
 an oath ; efpecially as a vow is of the fame nature with a pro- 
 mifTory oath, and a promiflbry oath materially, although not 
 formally , included in the bofom of a vow. As this is the cafe, 
 flnce my opponent allows of the firft, it is not improbable, 
 that his fcruples at lafl: may evanifh, as foon as decency will 
 admit. The reafon he afligns, for allowing of covenanting by 
 a folemn vow, renders it exceedingly probable, that he may 
 foon get over hi5 fcruples at the formality of an oath alfo. 
 
 He informs his reader, p. 102. that a vow is, ' A folemn 
 * promife made to God, to do fomething that is lawful to be 
 
 < done.' And p. toi. that « all gofpel worfhip is a vow ef* 
 
 < fentially and materially.' And * that feveral parts of gofpel 
 f worfhip contain a formal vow.' He does not therefore en- 
 tirely reject covenanting, becaufe it is included in every branch 
 of gofpel worfhip. I have no objection to his reafoning, which 
 is borrowed from the Rev. Mr. Graham, that a vow is mate- 
 rially included in every branch of gofpel worfhip ; effcntially 
 and formally are fomething different. 
 
 On the fame principles, however, I maintain, that all gofpel 
 worfhip includes an oath materially, although not formally* 
 An oath is a folemn appeal unto, and invocation of God, as a 
 witftefi of our fincerity ; and as the judge of all, who will un- 
 doubtedly take vengeance Tor diflimulation and falfliood ; and 
 therefore ufually concludes, as I fhall anfwer to God at the 
 great day. Now, in prayer, and every other branch of gofpel 
 worfhip, (if it is rightly performed) the worfhipper addreffes 
 himfelf to God as the omnifcient witnefs of his fincerity ; if he 
 does not, he worships a blind idol, not the omnifcient God. 
 Every branch of gofpel worfhip therefore materially includes a . 
 folemn appeal to God as our omnifcient witnefs. The gofpel 
 worfhipper, in like manner, addretfes himfelf 'lutro the Mofl 
 High, as the Judge of all the earth, who will render to every 
 man according to his woiks, and before whom he himfelf muft 
 fhonly give an account. If he does not, he worfhips a god, 
 who, as he thinks, will neither judge, puniih, nor reward. 
 Every branch of gofpel worihip therefore, materially includes. 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 an appeal unto, and invocation of the Mod High, as the onv 
 nifcienr witnefs, and as the judge of all. 
 
 As my friend does not condemn covenanting, becaufe a vow 
 is materially included in every a£t of gofpel worfhip, it is like- 
 ly he will foon get over his fcruples at an oath alfo, fince it is 
 Hkewife included materially in every branch of gofpel worfhip, 
 and his reafoning equally conclufive for both. 
 
 I but now obferved, that it is a matter of lefs moment to me, 
 whether covenanting is by a vow or oath, fince a vow, as our Weft- 
 minfter divines obferve, is of the fame nature with a promhTory 
 oath ; and I may add, that a folemn vow materially, although 
 not formally, includes a promiflory oath. A promifTory oath 
 is an invocation of", and appeal unto God as the Witnefs, with 
 refpeft to our fincerity in what w u promife, and as the Judge 
 who will take vengeance on the perfidious. All this is mite- 
 rial included in a folemn vow. Accordingly we find them 
 joined together by the Pialmifr, Pfal. cxxxii. ' How he fware 
 < and vowed.* The wife man evidently reprefents the Moft 
 High, both as the witnefs and revenger, with refpecl to a fo- 
 lemn vow, Eccl. v. 5, 6. « Better it is that thou moulded not 
 « vow, than that thou fhouldeft vow and not pay. Suffer 
 ' not thy mouth to caufe thy flefh to fin, — wherefore fhould 
 ' God be angry at thy- voice, and deftroy the work of thine 
 ' hands ?' Plainly reprefenting God as the witnefs and aven- 
 ger of rafiinefs, or diflimulation, in a folemn vow. Now, if 
 he reprefents hirofelf in this manner with refpecl to a folemn 
 vow, we cannot perform the duty aright, without an appeal 
 unto him, as he reprefents himfelf. If a vow is admitted, 
 there can be no reafonable objection to an oath, fince a pro- 
 coiiTory oath is materially included in every folemn vow. 
 
 There are fome particulars, however, concerning vows, in 
 which I cannot agree with my opponent. Bapiifm and the 
 Lord's fupper excepted, I cannot agree with him, that other 
 branches of gofpel worship are formal vows. P. 104. * Pray- 
 * er, fays he, public, private, and fecret, contains a forma! 
 c vow.' Although prayer may and ought to have adoration, 
 confefTion, and thankfgiving, connected with, or included in 
 it, the formality of prayer, certainly confifis in p:tition } or 
 lication* Mr. Ilutchilon maintains, that a vow is a pro- 
 
( 9« ) 
 
 mife to God, to do fomething ; but prayer is an afking from 
 God, to receive fomething from him. How promt nng to God, 
 to do ; and a/king from God, to receive, (hould be formally 
 the lame, is to me quite unintelligible, Befides, if prayer is 
 a. formal vow, every thing applicable to -a vow, mult be appli- 
 cable unto prayer alio. We reai, however, of performing, 
 keeping, breaking vows ; but it would be fomething uncouh I 
 to fpeak of performing t keeping, breaking, prayers; an evi- 
 dence that they are not formal vo-jjs. If public praver is a 
 formal vow, I apprehend it has no- only been very igrnor^rrly^ 
 performed, but that many c:innot yet perfuade themfelves, 
 that they are joining in a public formal vow, when they join 
 in public fupplication unto God. I mu!t d.ffrr from my friend 
 on this particular, and rm~ lain, that a vow is only materially 
 not formally included in gofpeJ worihip in general. As a na> 
 live confequence of this, I cannot agree wi>b nnr author, that 
 public formal vowing, is an ordinary fitted duty ,• but main- 
 tain, that it is an occafional duty, and time to be fet apart for 
 the performance of it, whtn God in his providence calls 
 thereto. 
 
 I am likewife at a lofs to underftand my friend's doctrine, 
 concerning the obligation of vows and oaths, in things merely 
 lawful, or indirTerent. In his Delineation, p. 120. he main- 
 tains, l That when oaths are inierpofed in matters which are 
 
 * left indifterect by the law of God, and neither fins nor duties 
 
 * in themfelves, fuch oaths have an intrinsic obligation in them. 
 « — In all matters, therefore, which are not the object of di- 
 « vine command, if an oath is interpofed, it is ftriclly obliga- 
 
 * tory ; and the obligation, in fuch cafes, arifes wholly from 
 
 < the oath itfelf.' In p. 118. of the performance under 
 confidetation, he maintains, that vows, in things lawful or 
 indiiferent, have no obligation at all : * But the law of God 
 
 * appointing vows in all fuch cafes to be performed, if in the 
 « power of the perfon vowing. If the law of God did not 
 « require lawful vows to be kept, they could have no obligation 
 
 < at all; and it would be juft as lawful to break, as to make 
 
 < them.' It is hard to underftand how an oath, in a matter 
 of indifference, has an intrinfic obligation, UJIricl.'y obligatory, 
 and the obligation arifing wholly from the oath itfelf, for all 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 thefe are bis identical expreiTions; but a vow in a fimilir cafe, 
 has no obligation at all. He mentions particularly, that if a 
 man fwear to go to fuch a place, on fuch a day, his oath has 
 an intrinfic obligation, is ilriclly obligatory, and the obligation 
 arifes wholly from the oath itfelf: But although he mould vour 
 to go to fuch a place, on fuch a day, it has no obligation at all, 
 according to my opponent's doctrine of vows ; it is only the 
 law requiring fuch vows to be kept. 
 
 I could wifh to be informed, how an oath, refpecYing things 
 indifferent, conftitutes a ftrict obligation, arifing wholly from 
 the oath itfelf; but a vow, in a •llmiiar cafe, no obligation at 
 all. Without this, your new obligation-men, Sir, will pro- 
 bably attempt to avail themfelves of your doctrine, concerning 
 the intrinfic obligation of oaths in things indifferent. Perhaps* 
 forne of them may queftion your right to bind yourfeif by oath, 
 where the law of God has left you at liberty. Others of them 
 will probably alledge, that you add to the obligation of the law, 
 not in the way of ftrengthening but extending, as you maintain 
 a ft rift obligation, which does not arife from the law, for it 
 leaves the man at his liberty to do or forbear : the obligation 
 arifes wholly from the oath. Befides, Sir, they will certainly 
 maintain, and with a confiderable degree of argument on their 
 fide, that if an oath has an intrinfic obligation in one thing, 
 it rauft have an intrinfic obligation in every thing not finful, 
 whether it is commanded or indifferent. They will probably 
 allow, that the obligation of the divine law is as much fuperior 
 to the intrinfic obligation of an oath as you pleafe ; but deny 
 that it either does, or can change or deftroy the intrinfic obli- 
 gation of the oath : and things which are fubordinate are not 
 inconfifient. 
 
 I am verily of opinion, that according to your principles, 
 you ought certainly to have fixed the obligation of oath? in 
 things indifferenr, as well as of vows in the law of God re- 
 quiring fuch oaths to be kept. You will grant, I luppole, 
 that when once an oath is made in things indiiferent, the law 
 requires the fwearer to perform that, to which he has bound 
 himfelf by oath; and this fubfequcnt requirement of the lw, 
 does not deftroy the intrinfic obligation of the oath. But if 
 that to which the perfon fwears was antecedently comnardcd 
 
 N 
 
( y« ) 
 
 or .. quired by trie law, in this cafe you maintain, that the 
 antecedent requirement deftroys, or annihilates the intrinfic 
 obligation of &e oath. It is difficult to underftand, Sir, how 
 an offer requirement of the law ..as no influence on the in- 
 trinfic obligation of an oath, but a prior requirement prevents, 
 01 annihilates the obligation. Did I consider the difference 
 between you and fome others, concerning obligation, as real, 
 and were engaged on your fide ; I would certainly charge you 
 wiih betraying the important caufe, by your intrinfic obligations 
 arifing -wholly from the oath itfelf. 
 
 I readily agree with Mr. Hotcbifon, that the Rev. Mr. Gra- 
 ham has wrote judicioufly on feveial topics concerning cove- 
 nanting ; though I am far from being as certain of his fup^rio- 
 rity to all his own Brethren, who have wrote on that fubjecl:. 
 I cannot, however, approve of hi? fpeaking contemptuoufly of 
 the diftinction between an afTertory, and promiflory oath, as 
 nugatory and trifling. Our ConfeiTion evidently maintains the 
 ciilincTion, chap. xxii. feci. 5. * A vow is of a 1'ke nature with 
 ' a promifibry oath ;' plainly diftinguifhing between an afTer- 
 tory, and promifibry oath. "While we profefs to approve of 
 our ConfeiTion, not merely as a bond of union, but as a teft 
 of orthodoxy, if we differ from it, we might at leafk exprefs 
 ourfelvcs with fome degree of modefly. I dill apprehend, that 
 there is a manifeft difference between an oath in which a man 
 calls God to witnefs his veracity in declaring matters of fac% as 
 in a criminal caufe ; and an oath in which he calls God to wit- 
 nefs the fincerity of his refolutions, in the ftrength of promifed 
 grace, to believe what God has revealed, and obey what he has 
 required, as in public covenanting. In the firft, if he declares 
 the ttuth, it is over ; and fo no propriety in fpeaking of per- 
 forming or keeping it afterwards. But the fcripture, once and 
 ag'in, fpeaks of performing and keeping promifTory oaths; a 
 manifeft evidence, that an engagement to perform the duties 
 cnnnefred with the oath, is materially, if not formally includ- 
 ed. The diftinction is not fictitious, but real ; it is not nu- 
 gatory, but important. Should a man pledge his fidelity to us, 
 that he was declaring nothing but truth in matters of fact ; and 
 likewife pledge his fidelity, that he would perform fome im- 
 portant branch of fervice for us \ I apprehend the diftincYion 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 between thefe would not be confickred as trifling. "We would 
 view the fiift, as only ascertaining us of the truth of a matter 
 of tact ; but the other as including an engagement to do us 
 an eflential fervice. An aflertory oath is a calling God to wit- 
 nefs our veraciiy ; but a promiflbry oath includes an engage- 
 ment xo perform the duties annexed. Although I agree with 
 my opponent, that Mr. Graham is a fenfible writer, I cannot 
 very much admire hh exrent of jndgmenr, in the preface to 
 his fermons ; when he allows the delirium of the day, (I mean, 
 unbridled rage at all who differ from us) to waft him into 
 the unknown regions of Utopia, where he converfes with, and 
 predicts the Burgher's conduct in the year 9999. ; exceedingly 
 fimilar to iEneas converting with his Sire in the fhades, con- 
 cerning his future progeny, for many hundreds of years. 
 
 I apprehend Mr. Hutchifo*.*; will eqtially difapprove of Mr. 
 Graham's afTertion in the following page. l Such profefled 
 
 * lukewarmnefs in the caufe of Chriftianity and the Reforraa- 
 ' tion, even among thefe who are loud, and perhaps fincere in 
 ' their profefllon of love to Chrift, and all good men, Reafon 
 4 herfelf muft pronounce an infallible fign, that a certain filly 
 < fimplicity and giddinefs, and a tafte for abfurdity hath already 
 ' feized on the generation, which may be the forerunner of 
 ' awful apoflafy from the truth, and unprecedented revoluti- 
 
 • ons in the ifland.' I need not inform my friend who they 
 are, who are feized with a tafte for abfurdity. It is agreeable, 
 however, that Mr. Hutchifon allows of covenanting by a folemn 
 vow, and our difpute well nigh over ; as a vow is of the fame 
 nature with, and includes a promiflbry oath. Perhaps it is 
 fome of the principles he imbibed in his early years, (till keep- 
 ing hold of his confeience, which have conflraincd him to ac- 
 knowledge covenanting by a folemn vow. And it is not im- 
 probable that a number of his connections, difapproving of his 
 coarfe afltrtions concerning covenanting, has not been without 
 its influence. Be thefe things as they will, the acknowledging 
 of the truth is agreeable. 
 
 I am fuflered to pafs with refpccl to toleration, terms of 
 communion, and a variety of other particulars. My friend 
 informs his reader, that what I have advanced on thefe topics 
 is unworthy of his labour, or the attention of mankind. — 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 There are Aill fome, however, who are fo ignorant as to ima- 
 gine, that what I have fuggefted, defcrves their ferious confi- 
 deration ; and that Mr. Hutchifon only evades, becaufe he can 
 give no folid reply. I dial! therefore fatisfy myfelf at the time, 
 with fhortly repelling his charge of bloody principles, till I fee 
 fome appearance of anfwer to thefe fentiments, which I have 
 already advanced. 
 
 In p. 13. of his Animadverfions, he proceeds to inftrucT: 
 his weighty charge, by informing the reader, that the general 
 aflembly petitioned the Scotch parliament to enforce the fur> 
 fcribing of the covenant under all civil pains; and that the 
 parliament enacted accordingly.— I reply : Mr. Hutchifon has 
 no fcruple to give his fufTrage in favour of penal flatutes againfl: i 
 Papifts ; and fome who lived nigher that period, and had ra- 
 ther better accefs to know, inf$*m us, that thefe penal flatutes 
 were principally intended againfl Papifts, and tools of defpotic 
 arbitrary power ; and only in terrorem, without any defign to 
 put them in execution, unlefs the turbulent behaviour of thefe 
 enemies to their liberties, civil and religious, fhouid render it 
 neceffary for the prefervation of their liberty and lives : And 
 Mr. Hutchifon is exceedingly fparing in furnifhing us with in- 
 fhnces of thefe penal flatutes being executed. But although 
 it were true, that the alTembly and parliament really intended 
 to carry thefe compulfory meafures into execution ; what 
 connection has this with Seceders maintaining bloody prin- 
 ciples ? 
 
 Yes, fays my opponent, the Scotch parliament in the year 
 1643, anc ^ 1644. enacted, that the folemn league (hould be 
 fubferibed by all ranks, under all civil pains; and Seceders in 
 their judicial Teflimony, 'approve of thefe bloody perfecuting 
 acts. Speaking ot the celebrated period, fays he, between I 638, 
 and 1650 ; they have thefe remarkable words: i During this 
 
 < period, the eita:es of the nation alfo gave their helping hand 
 
 < to the work of reformation, not only by the legal eftablifh- 
 
 * ment given unto it in the year 1640, but alfo by approving 
 
 * the folemn league and covenant, in Anno 1644.' My 
 friend affures his reader, that thefe are the identical, bloody, 
 perfecuting popim acts, as he is pleafed to ftile them, which he 
 had but now mentioned. Although the reformation between 
 
( toi ) 
 
 38 2nd 50, was not without its defers; and although they 
 were in a manner forced, for their own fafety, to adopt fcvere 
 meafures, in fome inftances ; it was fuch a period, Sir, that 
 every rial piefbyterian muft defpife the nominal one who 
 derides it. — But what is it in theie words which renders them 
 fo remarkable ? Seceders approve of the civil eftablimment 
 given to religion ; and what then ? Is this, Sir, to maintain 
 bloody principles, or to approve of penal ftatutes ? A very 
 fmall fcrape of common len^e, might lave fuggefted to you, 
 that a civil eftabliihment given to religion, is one thing, and 
 penal itaunes another, and a very different. Penal flatutes 
 annexed to an eftabliihment, evidently fuppofe that eftablifhment 
 prior unto them Seceders approve of the eftablifhment given 
 to religion ; and therefore, lay you, they mutt certainly ap- 
 prove of penal (Jatutts Conclufive re3 Toning ! 
 
 Seceders likewise give their fu.rTerage to the parliament's 
 approving of the folemn league. Can you prove, Sir, that 
 there is any herefy in this ? Becaufe Seceders confider the 
 parliament as only doing their duty in approving of the folemn 
 league, you are quite certain, that they mull alfo approve of 
 compulfory meafures and civil pains. Common lenfe might 
 have taught you, that injoining the covenant, under all civil 
 pains, fuppofes a previous approbation of it ; and though Se- 
 ceders approve of the one, it will never follow from this, that 
 they likewife approve of the other ; nor can you produce a 
 fingle fyllable to that purpofe. They declare their approbation 
 of the eftablifhment of religion, and the parliament's approving 
 of the folemn league, but not one word of penal ftatutes, or 
 civil pains. The reader will not be furprifed that Mr. Hutchi- 
 fon aiTerts thefe things with an air of confidence neculiar to 
 himfelf, if the force of his argumentation is confiw.red. Se- 
 ceders, fays he, approve of the parliament eilablilhing religion, 
 and approving of the folemn league ; and therefore muft cer- 
 tainly approve of penal ftatutes, coercive meafures, civil pains, or. 
 To ufe his own dialecl, is he not the mere/} trifler with the 
 public ? Bt fides, if the reader confult the pnffage, he will find 
 the compilers of the Teftimony declare, that they do not 
 mean, that there was nothing defective, or culpable, in the 
 adminiftration during this reforming period, ttut Mr. Hut- 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 chifon is quite certain, that bloody perfecuting popilh a&s, an 
 none of thefe things which Secedcrs might confider as culpable 
 The reader muft believe him. 
 
 He adds, that in their Teftimony, they Jikewife complain 
 that during the public refolutions, the nation, with the con 
 fent of the church, gave up with all the civil fecurities giver, 
 to religion from I 638. Was there no fecurity given to reli- 
 gion, Sir, during that period, except bloody perfecuting a&s 
 penal ftatutes, tec. ? Conclufive reafoning ! Befides, by con 
 fulting the paflage, the reader may fee, at firft glance, tha< 
 what the Teftimony inveighs againft in that period, fo remark 
 ably perfecuting, is the entrnfting perfons with our liberties 
 civil and religious, who were notour enemies to both ; anc 
 who very foon, as might well be fufpec"ted, deprived the nation 
 both of the one and the other. Now, whatever defect mighi 
 be in the management of this particular, I cannot underftanc 
 how Seccders are chargeable with maintaining bloody principle^ 
 becaufe they difapprove of entrufting treacherous Paptfts 
 bloody cut-throats, tools of arbitrary power, with their liber-; 
 ties, civil and religious. This is the fum of our author'} 
 argument. 
 
 He adds, ' In p. 1 10. of their Teftimony, without omj 
 fmgle exception, they receive, acknowledge, and approve all 
 the acls of Aflembly, from Anno 1638, to 1650.' Anc^ 
 eonfequently approve of the perfecuting aft, for in forcing th< 
 covenant with civil pains. By confuhing the psfTage, the read- 
 er will find, that the Teftimony exprefTe9 an approbation ol 
 thefe afts, only, in * fo far as they were adapted to advanct 
 * and carry on a covenanted reformation, agreeable to the 
 1 word of God.' Thefe are the identical expreflions ; but it 
 was Mr. Hutchifon's bufinefs to conceal them. Nor is this 
 approbation confined to the celebrated period, but extends tc 
 all the afts of AlTembly fince that time, adapted to the fam< 
 purpofe, viz. the promoting of reformation. Muft Seceders 
 Sir, be chargeable with bloody principles, becaufe they approve 
 of the deeds of their anceftors, in fo far as they were calculated 
 to promote reformation, agreeable to the word of God ? You : 
 ape not hunting for herefy, and the reader will undoubtedly | 
 
(, io 3 ) 
 
 dmire your argumentation. The word of God, it would 
 cem, muft yield to a novel whim. 
 
 But what, fays he, (hows to a demonflration, what the 
 >rinciples of Seceders are, refpefting toleration, is their anfwers 
 o Mr. Nairn, p. 47. where they approve of, and bear ho- 
 lourable teftimony to what they call, the deed of the civil 
 :onflitution, fet upon a reformed footing, by aft 8th, pari, 
 fames VI. It is true, Sir, as you aflert, that the aft does 
 
 ^ Contain, that the king, at his coronation, mould engage to 
 
 root out heretics. But the body of the aft, which you fup- 
 
 prefs, contains alfo, « That the king fhould engage to obferve 
 
 the true religion himfelf; preferve it for his fubjefts ; and 
 
 1 t rule them agreeable to the word of God.' Now, it is this, 
 and not the rooting out of heretics, which the anfwers to Mr. 
 Nairn, call the deed of civil conflitution reformed. The read- 
 er may be fatisfied concerning this, by confuhing the very 
 
 : next page, where it is aflerted, that in an after aft, the deed 
 of civil conflitution was farther reformed than ever before* 
 
 ' In this aft, however, we do not find the rooting out of heretics 
 'more rigoroufly enafted, which behoved to be the cafe, if this 
 was the reformation intended. But we find, that the king 
 
 i; engaging to obferve the reformed religion himfelf; and to pre- 
 ferve it for ' .s fubjefts ; his family, and counfellors to aft: 
 
 y agreeably thereto ; and to rule his people agreeable to the 
 
 1 • word ; is the fubftance of the aft, and what the anfwers call 
 the civil conflitution reformed. 
 
 From thefe few remarks, it is evident, that what the prefby- 
 tery call the civil conflitution reformed, is the king engaged 
 at his coronation, to obferve the true religion himfelf ; to 
 preferve it for his fubjefts ; and rule them agreeable to the 
 word. Might not the prefbytery approve of this, without 
 approving of rooting out of heretics, or what you call bloody 
 
 ' Popiih principles ? Your demonstration, Sir, is mere affer- 
 tion ; and whether you are the dunce, or deceiver, in this 
 quotation, you can beft determine. 
 
 rhaps you may objeft, that the prefbytery, in their an- 
 fwers, did not declare their difapprobation of rooting cut of 
 heretics. This is very ealily accounted for ; they were not, 
 like fome others, fired with an itch to aggrancizc their charac- 
 
J 
 
 ( i<>4 ) 
 
 ter among the gallios of the age, by reviling their worthy an. 1 
 ceftors. They confidered it as fufficient, in a general way, I 
 to conclude their approbation of thefe afts, by dechring, that 
 they did not mean that there were no defecls, imprudencies, 
 or miftakes in them, or in the management of them, as the 
 reader will fee by confulting the anfwers, p, 49. 
 
 In a former publication, he allows, that Seceders difclaimB 
 thefe bloody principles; but mauls them without mercy, foci 
 the inconfiftency of allowing them to continue in their (tandard 
 books. — I reply ; That it is not an edfv nutter to convince 
 us, that Mr. Hutchifon understands our books of receives 
 principles better than ourfelves ; and we are not yet convinced 
 that they contain any fuch principles. - It may not be impro- 
 per however, to confider, if Mr. Hutchifon (tears clear of thi: 
 inconfiftency. He informs us once and again, that he approval! 
 of the Weft minder Confeflion ; that all their minifters declareM 
 their approbation of it at their ordination. He will certain!) . 
 allow this to be one of his books of received principles. Now j 
 although I am abundantly fatisfied, that our Confeflion doe 
 not maintain bloody principles ; I aver, that the expreilion . 
 are as ftrong, and as liable to be mifconftrucled, as any in ouijf 
 Teftimony. The reader may confult chap, xxiii. That < th< 
 
 * magiftrate hath authority to take order, that unity and peaci 
 
 * be preferved ; — that blafphemies and herefies be fuppreflfed, 
 &c. Mr. Hutchifon aiTerts, Animad. p. 19. That it wouh 
 be an amiable expreilion of Chriftian charity, for the civil ma 
 ginrate to build and endow places of worfhip for the erroneous 
 while he held their errors in abhorrence. But his book oi 
 received principles, I mean the Confeflion, declares that thi 
 magiftrate has authority, and that it is his duty to fupprej. 
 them. It is not the ufual way of fupprefling errors and hti 
 refy f to build and endow places of worfhip for the broacher 
 or abettors of them. To build and endow places of worfhip 
 Sir, is exceedingly like an eftablifhment. You can eafily prove 
 that a general or national eftablifhment, although in favour oc 
 truth, is foreign to the nature of the Chriftian church, p. 19. & 
 but a particular cftablithment in favour of error > is an amiabls 
 expreffion of Chriftian charity* Are you not a mere trifle 
 with God, and .men, and with your own confeience, t< 
 
 
( io 5 ) 
 
 maintain, that the civil magiftrate (hould, in this manner, en* 
 courage and countenance errors and herefies, and pretend to 
 approve of our Confeffion, which declares that it is his duty to 
 fupprefl them ? To maintain, as you do, that if the civil 
 maginrare interfere in the leaft with the religious opinions of 
 the fubjeft ; or if he attempt to fupprefs herefies, even by 
 allowing the broachers of them only a negative or pafflve to- 
 leration, with-holding all countenance and encouragement from 
 them ; it is persecution for confcience fake, popery, bloody 
 principles, 6c ; but you folenanly approve of our ConfefEon, 
 which declares, that it is his duty to take order that unity be 
 preferved, herefies fupprefled, corruptions in worship and dis- 
 cipline reformed. What a prodigious blurter mould we have 
 heard, had you found any thing equally ftrong in our Tefti- 
 mony ? You mould certainly rid your ftandard book of thefe 
 bloody principles, for bloody ones they muft be, according to 
 your reafoning. 
 
 The reader's attention to the following obfervation is re- 
 queued, that he may fee the whole foundation of Mr. Hut- 
 chifon's charge diftinclly. Secedcts have declared their appro- 
 bation of the countenance given by the civil ma? 'ft rate, to the 
 true religion, during the reformation periods. In doing this, 
 they had occafion to quote acls of church and ftate, in which 
 fome fevere meafures were adopted. — It is no way furprifing, 
 that fevere meafures, in fome infrances, were adopted by our 
 anceftors ; if it is confidcred, that their liberties, religion, and 
 lives, were in the utmoft danger. The Seccders, not being 
 very fond of reviling their godly progenitors, have exprefled 
 their difapprobation of the fevere meafures in thefe acls, 
 rather in a general way : Signifying, that by approving 
 of thefe acls, they do not mean, that there were no de- 
 fects, roiftakes, mifmanagement, or imprudencies, contain- 
 ed in them. Now, it is the whole foundation of Mr. 
 Hutchifon's charge, that they have not adopted his dialect, 
 branding their reforming anctftors with popery, perfection, 
 bloody principles, 6c. Can any charge be more groundlefs ? 
 When we have publicly declared our difapprobation of violent 
 meafures, and you cannot adduce a fingle fyllable from our 
 Teilimony approving of them ; your pcrfifling, Sir, to charge 
 
 Q 
 
 ^s 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 us with bloody principles, is an evidence of your fupreme de- 
 lipht in traducing and quibbling ; and cannot be better ex- 
 prefled than in the words of the Poet. 
 
 He would rather on a gibbet dangle, 
 
 Than mifs his dear delight to wrangle : 
 
 In which his parts were fo accomplifh'd, 
 
 That right, or wrong, he ne'er was nonplufs'd ; 
 
 For though his topics, frail and weak, 
 
 Gould ne'er amount above a freak. 
 
 He back'd their fteble want ofjen/e, 
 
 With greater heat and confidence. 
 
 You inform me, that thefe who knew Mr Neil's character, 
 will never believe what I have pointed out froai his own e& 
 prefs words. I may return yon the compliment, by inform- 
 ing you, that every one who is acquainted with the character 
 of Seccders, derides, laughs, at your charge of bloody prin 
 ciples ; it is your own character, not ours, which bleeds by 
 it *. The reft of your feeble dccrepid arguments concerning 
 toleration ; or confident afTenions rather, fupported only -by 
 egometical authority ; will probably be canvafTed to purpofe 
 by another hand. 
 
 SEC T. VII. 
 
 Mr. Hutchi/on's Defence of Relief Doftrines examined, 
 
 I Shall now proceed to confider what he has advanced, con- 
 cerning the doctrinal errors which I formerly pointed out 
 in Relief publications. Here I have the pleafure to inform the 
 reader, that he gives up with the moft part of them. He 
 feems, however, to be confiderably piqued, becaufe he cannot 
 defend, and therefore endeavours to evade, by alledging, that 
 their writers did not mean any thing injurious to the freedom 
 of gofpel grace ; and (trains every nerve to defend the enfnar- 
 ing expreflions : and the reader muft judge for himfelf, if he 
 
 * He owns, that Seceders have publicly delared their difapprobation of 
 compulfory meafures, bnt he finds thefe contained in fome ads of parlia- 
 ment which they quote for a very different purpofe ; therefore they are cer- 
 tainly chargeable with them. If they approve of one thing in an act, they 
 approve of every thing in it, although they have publicly declared their dif- 
 approbation. Irrcfiflible demonftration ! 
 
( io 7 ) 
 
 dways fleers clear of defending the unfcriptural tenets them- 
 elves. I am likewife charged with fqueezing their words to a 
 enfe which they will not bear, making no allowance, isc. 
 When I apprehended, that they did not really mean that which 
 appeared to me the natural fenfe of their expreffions, I feveral 
 ;imes obferved it, but of this he takes no notice. It is very 
 probable I might mifunderfhnd their meaning ; for it is eafy to 
 temonftrate, that no roan can underfhnd the meaning of a 
 Relief writer, till he has explained it, and explained that ex- 
 plication. Mr. Ramfay had cenfured Mr. Neil, and very jufHy, 
 For maintaining that baptifm confiitutes the child a member of 
 the vifible church. Well, fays Mr. Hutchifon, and with an 
 air of confidence too, to conflitute fignifies to make ; but to 
 make fometimes fignifies to manifeji or declare , and confe- 
 quently to conflitute one a member of the vifible church, fig- 
 nifies only to declare him fuch. Now, becaufe in one parti- 
 cular inftance, the word make fignifies to manifefl or declare^ 
 could any man in the world guefs, that by conflicting, a Re- 
 lief writer means manifefting or declaring > That when Mr. 
 Hutchifon fpeaks of conftituting a prefbytery, he means de- 
 claring one ? — Mr. Ramfay blames Mr. Neil for fpeaking of 
 terms of mercy. Mr. Hutchifon replies, I humbly apprehend 
 he means fruits of faving mercy, and proper evidences of a fa- 
 ying intereft in it. Accordingly, when a Relief writer fpeaks 
 of terms of mercy, he means the fruits and evidences of it. 
 In other words, when he fpeaks of the purchafe, he means 
 the purchafed blejfings ; when he fpeaks of the condition, or 
 terms , he means the blcffings exhibited on the footing of fuch 
 condition or terms performed. Can any man be blamed for 
 mifunderfianding their meaning, till they have explained it, 
 and again explained that explication ? Nor need any man 
 charge them with error, for their meaning is the direct oppofite 
 of their expreffions. — In the beginning of this fecYion, I find 
 myfelf defigned this her efy. hunter No friend to the freedom 
 of gofpel grace, can be much moved at this, as it is the com- 
 mon fnetr of heretics, at thefe who deteel them. The wileft 
 of kings, divinely directed, informs us of foxes, and little 
 *uny ones too, who were nevertheltfs to be taken, left the 
 tender grapes fiiould be injured. An infpired apofile cxhotts 
 
 O 2 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 us to contend carnejily for the faith ; once delivered to the 
 feints : and as I am not yet convinced of exceeding fcripture 
 direction, the fnarls of heretics give me very little concern, 
 nor will my opponent aggrandize his character by adoptiag their 
 peculiar phrafes. 
 
 I am likewife claiTed with Mr. Ramfay, as being animated 
 by the fame motives. As I am entirely fatisfied, that Mr.. 
 Ramfay's motives are laudable, I confider this as an undefigned 
 commendation. It is true, our brethren and we difagree in 
 fome particulars, and perhaps the breach confiderably widened . 
 by jealoufits and mifunderftandings, which may in time be 
 removed, without aggrieving any man's confcience ; which I 
 am perfuaded would be matter of joy to every one, on both 
 fides, who wiihes well to religion But how Mr. Hutchifon 
 comes to be fo well acquainted with our internal obJlru6liom t 
 our inward motives alfo, and iprings of action, is not a little 
 myfterious. 
 
 As the errors I condefcended upon are numerous, lam 
 afraid of prolixity, if I either repeat every one, or enlarge. 
 
 In p. 8. Compendious View, he aliened, * The reft of the 
 
 * human race were pa/Ted by in the decree of election/ which 
 appeared to me a confounding of the decree of flection and 
 reprobation. In defence of this, he informs his reader, ' My 
 € meaning is, that the reprobate part of mankind, were not 
 
 * included in the decree of election, but pafTed by.' But the 
 qucftion is, Was this paffing by a branch of the decree of elec- 
 tion, or was it a branch of the decree of reprobation ? and it 
 is yet unanfwered : His argumentative no fuch thing, is alTer- 
 tion, not proof. He likewife profeflVs his belief, that aclual 
 as well as original fin is the caufe of damnation. The queftion 
 13 nor, what Mr. Hutchifon believes, but did he aijert any 
 fuch thing in the paiiage quoted ? No, verily. 
 
 In the fame page, he alTerted, That i our Saviour was not 
 ' included in Adam's federal reprefentation, that he might be 
 
 * free from the imputation of his fin.' This feems to imply, 
 that he might have been included, and liable to the imputation 
 of Adam's fin. He replies, i Becaufe I fay he was not includec 
 
 * in it, and aflign a reafon why he was nst, nor could* — I 
 is much in favour of my remark, Sir, that in order to difprovt 
 
( i©9 ) 
 
 « it you are exceedingly pinched to keep by the truth. The 
 words mr could, are an addition ; it is only now that you fay 
 fo, no luch thing in your Compendious View ; a plain enough 
 evidence, you are confeious my remark was juft, however 
 ftrenuoufly you deny it. It is excellent reafoning for a man 
 to revile, at the fame time, that he is obliged to confefs. He 
 adds in defence, « When the Pfalmift fays of God, Pral. li. 
 « That thou migbteft be juftified when thou fpeakefl. You 
 « might have alledged, That David's aflertion implied that God 
 « might be unjutV I can fee no fimilarity between this and the 
 pcfcnt in hand, but only this, that the word that is in the text. 
 Divines of the firft character, expound it in the following 
 manner, and the truth of their expofition obvious to common 
 fenfe. David confeffed his fin, that the Lord might appear to 
 be juft, or that it might be evident that he was juft in fpeaking 
 againil, and chalientng him. Had you aflerted, that fince our 
 Lord's human nature, neither was, nor could be included in 
 Adam's reprefentation, this muft be an undoubted evidence, 
 that he neither was, nor could be liable for himfelf, to the 
 imputation of Adam's fin ; it was truth, and the text to your 
 purpofe, but not otherwife ; . although it is^hard to fay what 
 fenfr of the text, one of your diftinguifhed abilities may dis- 
 cover — In a word, as our Lord's human nature never was a 
 perion, he could not be liable to the imputation of Adam's 
 fin ; for it is not merely human nature, but the perfons of 
 Adam's offspring who are liable to the imputation of his fin. 
 You mention divines, Sir, whofe writings are favoury to many; 
 but are you certain, that like you, they would hive defended 
 every mode of expreffion which might inadvertently drop from 
 their pen : I have no fuch spprehenfion. 
 
 He aflerted, p. 10. concerning the Saviour's body and foul, 
 ' That from the moment of his conception, they fubfifted in 
 < union unto his divine perfonality, as the Son of God.' I 
 conlidered this as implying, that his body and foul were united 
 the very moment of conception. He replies, * I take concep- 
 1 tion here not in a Uriel, but in a large fenfe, when the foul 
 ■ is united unto the body in the womb.' His large fenfe, 
 however, is not the ufual fenfe of the word, nor did he give 
 the rcmouft hint of his large fenfe till now; but you can never 
 
( na ) 
 
 be certain of our author's meaning, by the ordinary fenfe of 
 his expreflions. In defence of his large fenfe, he quotes the 
 Pfaimift's declaration, « In fin did my mother conceive me ;' 
 and alledges, that in this text, conception muft refer to the time 
 when foul and body were united. But why we muft depart 
 from the ufual fignification of the word conception, and under- 
 ftand it in our author's large fenfe, is more than I can tell. 
 No valid reafon can be affigned, #hy conception mould refpeft 
 the time when foul and body were united ; when the former 
 claufe, J was fhapen in iniquity f evidently refpecls the very firfl: 
 formation of the body. The reafon which our author afligfts 
 for his large fenfe of conception in this paflage, is utterly in- 
 conclullve. Till foul and body were united, fays he, the 
 Pfalmiit could be a (inner, neither by imputation, nor inhefion. 
 This argument plainly imports, that it is abfurd to imagine, 
 that Adam's fin can be imputed, till foul and body are united. 
 But if fo, whence is it, that the foul is created without origi- 
 nal righteoufnefs ? We cannot reconcile this with the hbli. 
 nefs of God, without fuppofing, that in creating the foul, be 
 afts in the character of a righteous Judge, with-holding original 
 righteoufnefs, as a punimment of Adam'/ fin imputed. — Again, 
 if it is abfurd to alledge, that Adam's fin can be imputed, till 
 foul and b6dy are united, whence does the corrupt conftitution 
 of our bodies proceed ? That our body is fo framed, as to 
 prove a fnare to the foul, is what none but Socinians, and 
 fuch as impugn the doctrine of original fin, will deny. But 
 this corrupt conftitution commences at the very firft formation 
 of the body, as is evident from the preceding claufe, ' I was 
 « fhapen in iniquity.' Now, how can we reconcile this with 
 the juftice and holinefs of God, without confidering it as a 
 confequence of Adam's fin imputed unto his offspring ? Our 
 author's necefiity of departing from the ufual acceptation of 
 the word conception, in this palTage, is an entire fiction, or 
 fomething worfe, being a thruft at the juftice and holinefs of 
 the Judge of all the earth. Till forne other evafion is invent- 
 ed, his large fenfe is of no avail to him. — -In oppofition unto 
 the Saviour's foul and body, being united in the moment of 
 conception, I adduced the common argument, that he was 
 made like unto his brethren in all things, fin excepted. This 
 
( m ) 
 
 argument, he pretendi to turn againft me. The Redeemer's 
 human nature, fays he, was formed in an extraordinary manner; 
 he was born of a virgin ; he was not like his brethren in tbefe ; 
 but neither of them were finful. The reply is eafy : I demand 
 a proof, that either of thefe rendered the Redeemer's human 
 nature, foul and body, unlike his brethren : no fuch thing. 
 The manner of formation and birth, did not, in the fmalleit 
 degree, render his human nature unlike his brethren ; and it is 
 not the manner of formation , but the nature formed concerning 
 which we enquire. But if the Redeemer's foul and body were 
 unired the moment of conception, the nature itfelf was not like 
 his brethren. Their human nature is incomplete, till foul and 
 body arc united ; if his never was fo, the nature itfe/fwzs not 
 like theirs. Till fomething elfe is adduced, I am in very little 
 hazard from my own argument. My friend has only his large 
 ftnfe of the word conception to offer in his own defence ; and 
 it is not improbable, that his large fenfe is like many clandeftine 
 marriages, which are not thought of till neceflity urge. 
 
 On this particular, he fpeaks of our Lord's human nature 
 united to his divine perfonality. Had he fatisfied himself 
 merely with ufing the expreflion, it might have paiTed for an 
 inadvertency ; bjt as he ftrenuoufly defends it againft Mr. 
 Ramfiy, and tells him, with an air of confidence, that when 
 he has performed the mighty fate of mowing the world the 
 difference between Chrift's perfon and his perfonality, the inge- 
 nuity of the quibbler will clearly appear : it may not be impro- 
 per to (how him, that the difference is not a mere quibble. — 
 The exprellions, divine person, and divine personality, are 
 evidently di finely and convey very different ideas. According 
 to orthodox divines, a person in the Godhead, is the divine 
 nature fubfifting with a perfinal property • but personality is 
 the mode or manner of fubfifting. The one is expreffive of 
 the divine nature fubfifting in a certain manner, the other ex. 
 prefTive only of the manner of fubfifling ; and therefore cannot 
 be fynonimous expreflions. This will appear obvious, if it is 
 conlidered, that all divine acls and operations miy, and ou^ht 
 to be afcribed to the persons of the adorable Trinity, but caa- 
 not be afcribed to their perfonality. In the oeconomy of re- 
 demption, how frequently and juftly, is the Contrivance afcrib- 
 
( H2 ) 
 
 ed wnto the firft person of the Trinity, as having a peculiar 
 agency therein, though not exclufive of the other two ? In 
 like manner the purchafe is afcribed unto the fecond, and the 
 application to the third person of the Trinity. Now, if per- 
 son and personality are of the fame import, the contrivance 
 of redemption may be afcribed to the father's perfonality^ the 
 purchafe to the perfonality of the Son, the application to the 
 personality of the Holy Ghoft. But how abfurd ! Perfonality 
 being what the fchool-men ftile an abflracl idea. Our prayers \ 
 are certainly to be directed to all the persons of the ever bleP 
 fed Trinity ; but what would our author meaD, mould he di- 
 reft his prayers unto, and plead for pardon, acceptance, and 
 every other bleffing, from the personality of the Father, Son, 
 or Spirit. 
 
 It is equally inconfiftent to fpeak of our Redeemer's human 
 nature, united only to his divine perfonality. Perfonality, as 
 we have juft now obferved, is the manner of fubfifting. The j 
 manner of the fecond perfon's fubfifting, is in the way of eter- 
 nal, natural, and neceffary generation. To be united to his 
 divine perfonality, therefore, is to be united to his eternal ge- 
 neration^ or manner of fubfifting. Nor is this a quibble, or 
 idle fpeculation as our author infinuates. for, if there is no 
 difference, as he afferts, between a divine perfon y and divine 
 perfonality ; it can make no difference, whether we, maintain 
 that our Lord's human nature was united to his divine perfon, 
 or to his divine perfonality : but the difference is unfpeakably 
 great. "When we maintain, that the Redeemer's human nature 
 was united to his divine perfon, it natively follows, that what- 
 ever was done by him in that nature, received infinite worth 
 and value from the dignity of his glorious perfon. But if we 
 $nly maintain, that his human nature was united to his divine 
 perfonality, in this cafe, nothing done by him in that nature, 
 could derive worth or value from the dignity of his glorious 
 perfon ; fince it was united only to his perfonality, or manner 
 of fubfifting, and accordingly a mod important article of gofpel 
 doclrine overthrown. You may juft as confidently talk, Sir, 
 of the body united unto the foul's fpir it uality, or of a fon un- 
 ited unto his father's paternity, as of our Lord's human nature 
 united to his perfonality. 
 
< "3 ) 
 
 From this curfory glance, the reader may judge, whether 
 Mr. Ramfay's ingenuity is moft eclipfed, or Mr. Hutchifon's 
 penetration difp/ayed, by the quibbling diftinction. Yon mould 
 really forbear attacking Mr. Ramfay on doctrinal articles, Sir 5 
 you are no way match for him : this is obvious to every one* 
 Your province, is a fuperficial incoherent blufter. You men- 
 tion divines who have ufed the difapproved expreffion, whofe 
 memory will probably be k *oury in the churches, when yours 
 and mine are buried in oblivion. But, are you certain that 
 they would have quibbled in defence of every inadvertent ex- 
 predion, and fnarled at every one who attempted to rectify it ? 
 Their well-known character forbids entertaining any fuch idea 
 of them. 
 
 In the fame page, he mentions only the dignity of the Re- 
 deemer's perfon, as the reafon why his fuiferings were not eter- 
 nal. He does not refufe what I fuggefted on this particular, 
 but informs me, that he never meant, that one reafon fhould 
 be two. This is judicious ; it is fublime ! — He likewife informs 
 his reader, that it is curious to fee the inconfidency of AfTo- 
 ciate writers ; that Mr. Ramfay blames him for illuitrating fome 
 points too much, and Mr. Walker for illuftrating others too 
 little. Had we aflerted this of the fame particulars, it was cer- 
 tainly inconfiftent. But as this is not alledged, it is no proof 
 of inconfiftency, as it is certainly poj/ible that Mr. Hutchifoa 
 might illultrate fome particulars too much, and others too little; 
 unlefs his charge is founded on a tacit claim to infallibility. — - 
 I add, it is curious to fee, how impracticable it is, for a Relief 
 writer to be candid. Is it fact, Sir, that I blame you for il- 
 luftrating fome particulars too little ? Nay, it is not. I blame 
 you for mentioning only one reafon, which you never meant 
 fhould be two, and when a fecond was equally neceiTary ; and 
 efpecially in a fyftem, where particulars mould be numerous, 
 and illustrations fliort. Narrate the truth, and the incon- 
 fiftency of Adbciate writers, fuch a curiofity io your apprehen- 
 fion, at once evanifhes. 
 
 In page 1 t . he fpeaks of the certainty of falvation being 
 purchafed. It is ftill myfterious to me, how the certainty of 
 falvation can be a matter of purchafe. He afks me, hosv the 
 
 P 
 
( "4 ) 
 
 fure mercies of David could be the matter of a purchafe. Ex- 
 cept t^e word fure, there is noting to his purpofe, in the text 
 to which he alludes. I afk him, in my turn, where is the 
 certainty or furenefs of thefe mercies, faid to be the matter of 
 a purchafe ? It is only by himfelf. The bleffings themfelves 
 were purcba fed by a Redeemer's blood ; the juftice and faith- 
 fulness of the God of truth render them fure. He leaves this 
 particular juft as he found it : his unmeaning query has not 
 fo much as the appearance of a reply. 
 
 I exprelTed my difl.ke of his arrangement, p. i 3. in giving 
 lis firft an account of duties to be performed, and then of doc- 
 trines to be believed. He replies, that in fcripture, the arrange- 
 ment which I mention is frequently inverted. I anfwer, Many 
 places of fcripture ^re not delivered in the fyftematic form. 
 From a fyflem like yours, Sir, we expect to be informed not 
 only of doctrines and duties, but of their order, connection 
 with, and dependance upon one another. If your arrange- 
 ment is fyftematic, duties muft lead the van. Perhaps it is 
 a x branch of your Chriftian liberty, not only to defpife other 
 writers of fyflems ; our Weftminfter divines alfo, Q. 3. ; but 
 even the apoftle Paul, who in moft of his epiftles, (which are 
 an excellent model for ordinary writers of fyftems) gives us 
 firft an account of gofpel doctrines, and then of duties to be 
 performed in the Strength of gofpel grace. 
 
 In p.- 1 7. he mentions the calls, commands, and invitati- 
 ons of the word, as the grounds of faith. This, I obferved, 
 confounds the grounds of faith, with a warrant, or rather an 
 indifpenfible obligation to believe. He cannot deny this. But 
 in order to exculpue himfelf, I only mean, fays he, that they 
 
 * give a right to linners to believe in Chrift. And if our 
 
 ' author denies this, he is not found in the faith.* I need 
 not fcruple much to deny this, and my foundnefs in the faith 
 in very little danger. I obferve, that calls and commands 
 belong to the gofpel only, when it is conlidered in an exten- 
 five (enfc, including the whole dilpenfation of it : the gofpel, 
 ftriftly f peaking, cioes not include calls, commnnds, precepts, 
 isc,\ calls and commands belong properly to the law ; and the 
 law's command 10 believe on Chrift, fuppofes the finner's rights 
 tut does not give it. Chrift and all his benefits, freely gifted 
 
 
( "5 > 
 
 unto finncrs in the gofpel, gives them an unqueftionable right 
 to receive; the calls «nd commands which belong to the law 
 do not give them a right, but bind and oblige them, on pain 
 of eternal damnation, to improve the richt conveyed unto them 
 in and by the gofpel gift. You have explained your meaning 
 once on this particular, and in order to render it orthodox, it 
 will be requisite to explain it yet a fecond time. The cats and 
 commands do not convey a right to believe on Chriil, but 
 fuppofe it, and oblige the finner to improve it. Your proof of 
 my unfoundnefs in the faith, becaufe I deny that calls and 
 commands give the (inner a right to believe, (hall be attended 
 unto. Soundnefs and unfoundnefs in the faith, Sir, is a fubitct: 
 on which you mould never be very peremptory, but always 
 leave room to explain your meaning once and again. 
 
 I exprefTed my difapprobation of his doctrine, p. 17. con- 
 cerning saving convictions ifluing in conversion. Here he 
 breaths out a clufter of heavy charges, limiting the Spirit, mo- 
 defy might have taught him, modern iriflers> &c. Now, where 
 my friend's charges are very weighty, the reader may generally 
 expect a diftinguifhed fpecimen of his candor in fupporting 
 them. Through the whole of this particular, he endeavours 
 to make his reader believe, that 1 refufe convictions, of any 
 fort, before regeneration ; whereas it is plain to a fchool-boy, 
 that the whole of my reafoning, is pointed at his saving con- 
 victions before regeneration. It is evident almoft in every fen- 
 tence. He teems to be fenfible of this, for he emirely mangles 
 my words in quoting them. The reader may judge if it has 
 not every appearance of defign. My words are, l accoiding to 
 1 this account, a man may have convictions, which are say- 
 ' ing, ten or twenty years before regeneration.' His quota- 
 tion runs, * Our author fays, according to this account, a man 
 « may have convictions, ten or twenty years before regenera- 
 c tion,' and with quotation marks, as my identical words — 
 The reader will obferve, that the word SAVING is in capitals, 
 that it might not be in any man's power, much lels a firlWare 
 divine, to miftake at what my reafoning was pointed. He 
 not only omits the capitals, but the words, which are filing, 
 upon which the lenfe evidently turns, are dtopt out altogether. 
 1 a(k the reader, il he can believe that this was undefigned ? 
 
 P 2, 
 
( II* ) 
 
 Or, if he can diltinguifh between this, and publishing a down* 
 right falftood ? I cannot conceive what he intends by foch 
 glaring mifreprefentation, if it is not to d'.iluade every one from 
 anfwering Him, as utterly unworthy of attention, incapable of 
 being reafoned with, and deferving no reply. There is not a 
 fingle fyllable in any thing I advanced, which has the remoteft 
 connexion with refuting conviction of any kind before regenc-, 
 ration: And any thing saving about a Tinner, ten or twenry i 
 years before regeneration, is abfolutely ridiculous, a fiction of i 
 bis own fancy. The following egomet, is all the defence he 
 offers : ' Thofe convictions,' I ca»l faving, which ifTue in rege- 
 
 < Aeration.' And are they faving, Sir, becaufe you call them 
 fo f A forcible argument, truly ! — According to this doctrine, 
 there mutt be a fpecific difference between the convictions of i 
 the elect before regeneration, and the convictions of the non- 
 elect ; the one is, while the other is not saving. Your 
 proof, of any thing laving about the finner, before he is unit- 
 ed unto Chrift, by the Spirit, in regeneration, will be very 
 obliging. 
 
 You tell us, that it is a doctrine of long (landing in the 
 church. If you mean the doctrine of your saving convictions 
 before regeneration, however individuals may have exprefled 
 themfelves on this fubject, you may inform us at your Ieifure, 
 what proteftant church has maintained, that any thing saving 
 is wrought in the finner, not only in order of nature before 
 faith, but which only iffues in faith at length. Nay, although 
 all the churches in Christendom lliould maintain this, it will 
 not be an eafy matter to convince fome of the truth of it, 
 while the apoft'e maintain? that whatfoever is not of faith is fin, 
 and that can never be of faith, which is before it, even in order 
 of time, and only fooncr or later itTues in it. A palpable mif- 
 reprefentation, and magisterial I call them fo, is all his defence, 
 as yet, of his saving convictions before faith. 
 
 In page 19. he atferted, * That when the righteoufnefs of 
 
 < Chriit is imputed to the finner, it is as pleadable by him, as 
 * if it had been wrought out in his own perfon/ If words 
 have any determinate meaning, this plainly implies, that it was 
 
 . not as pleadable by the finner before. A defence is impracti- 
 cable ; he prudently reckons it furncient to deny the very 
 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 plaineft confequence, and exprefles himfelf juftly enough, when 
 he is once fet to rights. 
 
 I fignificd my diflike of his order, in the fame page, in 
 placing a title to heaven in juftiflcation, before the pardon of 
 fin ; and that the order of our ftandards is preferable in my 
 view. He cannot defend his order ; but as he mutt needs fay 
 fomttbirg or other, he afferts, that they are at the fame time ; 
 and ;*nV me, if they are not. I afk again, Can there be no 
 order in nature, without a difference in time ? I reply further, 
 If his fojmer doctrine is true, that pardon is completed, no 
 man knew? when, they cannot be at the fame time. His 
 afferticn and que [Hon, have not the remoteft connexion with 
 hi« order , bi«t he rouft be allowed to quibble; it will fatisfy 
 the icnoront 
 
 Having introduced a branch of the Marrow doctrine, con- 
 cerning the pardon of fin, p. 20. he exprefled himfelf in a 
 manner exceedingly confnfed, the common cafe with all who 
 oppofe that doctrine. I accordingly pointed out a variety of 
 particulars, which appeared to me very exceptionable. He 
 cannot defend them, but alledges that I toil zndjweat for nine 
 pages, although it was by far the eafielr branch of the whole. 
 He adds, that I diicover much better talents for making clear 
 things dark y &c. It is a lucky hit, that I have talents of any 
 kind, and it is furprifing how admirably my talents are adapted 
 to my opponent's complexion. U would feem, that darkening 
 a thing, is the effectual method to enlighten him, for he will 
 not follow me through my -winding prolixity ; but he gives 
 the reader, a fhort diftincl fummary of the very fentiments I 
 advanced ; and entirely different from his former account of 
 this branch of doctrine. The reafon why he does not follow 
 me, is no myflery at all. He cannot point out a fingle parti- 
 cular that I oppofed, which is not the native confequence of 
 his own expreflions; nor can he refute a fingle fentiment I ad- 
 vanced, confident with the account he now gives us of the 
 point in difpute. But, as I am very glad he has come to my 
 hand, it would be indifcreet to infult. 
 
 He concludes his defence of the Compendious View, by in- 
 forming his reader, that he cannot but blame me for charging 
 him with a number of tenets, which he abhores as much as I. 
 
( "8 ) 
 
 I reply, if I have charged him with approving of thefe teneti, 
 it was inadvertently ; I only intended to maintain, that they 
 are the native confi quinces of his exprefs aiTertions ; and in 
 this cafe, I cou)d be no proper judge of his abhorrings. A man 
 may abhor a tenet, while he has not the common fagacity to 
 underftand, that it is the native confequence of his own afler- 
 tions. 1 * fcruple at nothing, however inconfiftent with truth.* 
 Your proof, Sir ; are you capable to point out a fingle fallhood 
 which I have afTerted ? You are not, nor do you fo much as 
 attempt it. You mould have marked out the falfhoods, as 
 you went along ; be fure always to maul a thief where you 
 find him. This would have put in my power to defend ; but 
 a general charge, while you are unable to adduce a fingle in- 
 flance, or we mould no doubt have heard of it, is difficult to 
 difprove. Can you point out the place, where I have fnppreiTed 
 a whole branch of a fentence, marked out with capitals, as 
 that on which the fenfe hinges ; and at the fame time, by 
 quotation marks, reprefented it as your identical words ? After 
 you have acted fuch a part once and again, were you capable 
 of blufhing, you could never mention the want of candor. 
 
 Thus I have confidered his defence of the Compendious View. 
 I defire the reader to confider, if Mr. Hutchifon has fupported 
 a Tingle tenet which I difapproved of; or if he has refuted a 
 fingle fentiment which I have advanced. What he intends by 
 it is difficult to conjecture. 
 
 He proceeds, p. 88. to vindicate the exceptionable tenets, 
 which I pointed, out in the writings of the late Rev. Mr. 
 Neil. 
 
 I expreiTed my difapprobation of Mr. Neil's inferring our 
 need of an incereft in Chrift, for the defects and failures in 
 our duty. Mr. Hutchifon replies, If we need an intereft in 
 Chrift, to an(wer for our defects in one duty, we need it for 
 our defects in all duties. Very true, Sir ; but we need an 
 intereft in the Redeemer for the acceptance of our perfoas, 
 and not only for defects and failures, but for every thing in 
 our duties, good or bad. Whereas this doctrine is well cal- 
 culated to mike finners apprehend, that they need an intereft 
 in Chrift, only for defects and failures in duty. 
 
( "9 ) 
 
 Mr. Neil aflerts, that none need to be deceived if they take 
 heed to themfelves. I again exclaim, Is this like preaching 
 the gofpel to blinded finners ! It is not too grofs, however, 
 for Mr. Hutchifon to vindicate. — Id defence, he replies, If 
 men exercife their rational powers, they need not be deceived 
 with refpect to the truth in Mr. Neil's text. It would be a 
 favour to the public, would he give them a diftinct accounr, 
 how far the exercife of their rational powers will bear them 
 out, in their lapfed condition ; and where the neceffiry of di- 
 vine aid commences. Befides, his infinuation, that Mr. Neil 
 confined his afTertion to the truth contained in his text, Is a 
 downright farce. Mr. Neil quotes the Saviour's direction, 
 1 Take heed to yourfelves, left any man deceive you,' and in- 
 forms us, that this direction would be to no purpofe, unlefs 
 his afTertion is juft, that men need not be deceived. But the 
 Saviour's direction includes fuch things as (if it were poflSbie) 
 would deceive the very elect. It is therefore the native coo- 
 fequence of Mr. Neil's doctrine, that if men would take heed 
 to tnemfelves, they need not be deceived by thefe things, which 
 (if it were poflible) would deceive the elect. And which is equally 
 grofs, that the Saviour's direction is to no purpofe, if finners can- 
 not comply. I leave the reader to judge for himfelf, if this is not 
 confiderably fimilar to their fentiments, who maintain, that it is 
 abfurd to alledge, that God requires any thing of us, which wc 
 have not power to perform. How deftitute of any thing like 
 common candor, to alledge, that he confined his afTertion to the 
 truth contained in his text ? — Here my opponent provides a fafe 
 retreat for heretics. Suppofe the preacher's fubject is the duty 
 of attending on gofpel ordinances. Well, he informs his 
 hearers, without any reftriction, that if they would take heed 
 to themfelves, they need not be deceived ; and that divine di- 
 rections are to no purpofe, if they cannot obtemperatc. But 
 if fome herefy-hunter fhould get hold of this, the preacher 
 meant only the truth in his text ; can men not attend on or- 
 dinances, or need they be deceived with refpect to this being 
 their indifpenfible duty ? Mr. Neil's afTertion, reflricted to the 
 truth in his text, is the fum of my opponent's defence, and 
 the flighteft glance at the fermon, will convince any man that 
 it is not fact. 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 I expreiTed my diflike of Mr. Neil's afTertion, that, * The 
 ' Son of God died, — that his throne of grace might be acceffible 
 ' to all penitent offenders. ' — My friend replies in vindication, 
 Mr. Neil does not affert, that impenitent Pinners have no accefs 
 to a throne of grace. I reply, Neither does he affert that they 
 have, although the glorious truth he mentions, natively led 
 him to proclaim accefs unto all, if there is fuclva thing. Here, 
 he again provides a fafe retreat for heretics. According to 
 this vindication, a Relief preacher may confine the gofpel call, 
 all his life-time, to penitent offenders. But if any of the more 
 orthodox (hould difapprove, he may reply, and with an air of 
 confidence too ; that he does not exprefly affert, that others 
 have no accefs to the throne of grace ; that Jhunning to declare 
 the whole counfel of God is no^crime, if he does not exprtfly 
 afTert any thing directly oppofite. I afk the reader, does not 
 my friend difcover hirnfelf to be an excellent herefy pro' 
 tefior ? 
 
 Mr. Neil likewife infills on repentance before faith, and be- 
 fore remiffion of fins. This I eonfidered as contrary to the 
 truth of the gofpel. Our author defends the firft, but over- 
 looks the laft. In defence of the firfr, he quotes Gal. v. from 
 ver. 22. where a variety of graces are mentioned before faith. 
 It is pretty evident, however, that the Spirit of God in that j 
 paffage, does not ftate any order or connection among the 
 graces there mentioned ; whereas there is fome reafon to think, 
 that Mr. Neil defignedly does fo. By confuting his fermons, 
 the reader will perhaps find that it is not once only, he m^kes 
 choice of this arrangement. That he has a view to order and 
 connection, with refpecT: to repentance before pardon, is unde- 
 niable. Left we fhould miftake his defign, he tells us, Re- 
 pentance in the first place, and then remiffion of fins. I 
 refer the reader to what I formerly adduced in oppofition to 
 this, and have received no reply. 
 
 I obferved, that Mr. Neil's afTertion, ' That it is the foun- 
 '< dation of the fpiritual life to renounce the fleln.,' implies, 
 that it is fomething done by ourfelves, which is the foundation 
 of fpiritual life. Our author alledges, that Mr. Neil's mean- 
 ing is entirely different from the ordinary fignifkation of his 
 exprcffions, and that he explains his meaning afterward, when 
 
( 121 ) 
 
 he fpeaks of the foul, as * actually recovered by the healing 
 ' power of divine grace/ It was neceflary to inform your 
 reader, Sir, how this is an explication of Mr. Neil's meaning. 
 It can only be an evidence, that like the Baxterians hi? doftrine 
 is a jumble of inconfiftency. Every Baxterian will allow of 
 the healing power of divine gr?oe, or talk at times in icripture 
 language ; and maintain, at the fame time, that the power of 
 grace proceeds on the footing of their renouncing the flefh, 
 or fomething done by themfelves ; and they mean not at ail 
 to difclaim their legal notions. Your aifertion proves nothing 
 elfe concerning Mr. Neil. — The reader will obferve, thar re* 
 nouncing the flefh (or fomething done by ourfelves) held forth 
 as the foundation of fpiritual life, is irreproveable dofkine in 
 the Relief. 
 
 Mr. Neil's doctrine, That ' holinefs is the foundation of all 
 
 * inward peace and comfort,' appeared to me confiderably grofr, 
 and undifguifed. It is plain as a fun-beam to my opponent, that 
 Mr. Neil does not mean to Lnfiauate any thing legal, although it is 
 the plain import of his words; and adduces a conclufive argument 
 in fupport of his opinion. Why, in the fame page, fays he* 
 Mr. Neil aiTerts, That God ' has fo constituted our nature, 
 
 * as to eftabliih an infeparable connection between holinefs 
 
 * and happinefs, fin and nailery.' It is the fum of this argu- 
 ment, that Mr. Neil could have no legal meaning, becaufe he 
 aiTercs that which no legaliji in the world denies. Did the 
 reader ever hear of legalifts denying the connection between 
 holinefs and happinefs ? Inftead of denying, it is the very foul 
 of their fcheme, that their holinefs, independent of Chrift's 
 blood and Spirit, is connected with happinefs. According to 
 his defence of the former particular, a Baxterian cannot main- 
 tain inconfiftencies ; according to this one, a legaliit cannot 
 maintain a connection between holinefs and happinels ; and 
 there cannot be a connection, except holinefs be the foundation 
 of happinefs. Profound reafoning ! It is very fortunate for 
 you, Sir, that you have only a Simpleton to oppofe you, or 
 he could never refrain from the keened deiifioo, to (ee you 
 venting iuch childifh abfnrdities, as are an atfYont to co nmon 
 fenle ; and in order 10 cover error's ugly face, not for c.vecu. 
 tiMj but prQUftiqn. 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 I obfervcd, that exprefling ourfelves concerning prayer, as 
 if a God of infinite perfection were thereby wrought upon ; in 
 the fame manner, tiiat our piteous complaints may work upon 
 our fellow-creatures of like pailions with ourfelves ; is likely 
 to make many mifunderftand the nature, and deflgn of the 
 duty. Mr. Hutchifon replies, The fcriptures fpeak of God in 
 this manner, that I allow it. I anfwer, the fcriptures give us 
 to underlhnd, that this is fpeaking of God after the manner 
 of men, which Mr Neil does not. Our author may difprove 
 any fentiment I have advanced concerning prayer, if he can ; 
 I know he cannot. 
 
 Mr. Neil's doctrine, That ' our Lord is willing to fave all/ 
 ' who are willing to be faved in that way which he propofes in 
 
 * the gofpel/ appears to me to exclude, the finner's being 
 made willing from being a branch of Chrift's faving work ; to 
 confine the Redeemer's willingnefs to thefe who are willing. 
 Mr. Hutchifon anfwers, that Chrift declares the fame thing, 
 and quotes John vi. 37. i Him that cometh to me, I will in 
 ' no wife call: out.' If our author imagine, that this text re- 
 fpects only thefe who are willing, I beg leave to differ from him. 
 The Saviour declares, in the preceding claufe, that all thefe 
 who are given him (hall come to him ; and that none might 
 think themfelves excluded frem accefs, he adds, « Him that com- 
 « eth,' without any reftriclion or limitation, ' I will in no wife caft 
 
 * out.' Of the fame import with that declaration, * Whofoever 
 € will, let him come.' When Mr. Neil declares, that penitent 
 finners have accefs, did he at the fame time, like the Saviour, 
 proclaim accefs unto all, there would be no ground of repre- 
 henfion. He adds, That Mr. Neil does not deny, that it is a 
 principal branch of Chrift's faving work to make finners willing. 
 — But does he affert it ? No fuch thing. Befidea, when he 
 afierts that Chrift is willing to fave thefe who are willing ; if 
 words have any certain meaning, it implies, that they mud 
 fir ft be willing, before our Lord is willing to fave them ; and 
 how then can it be a branch of his faving work? it makes his 
 will 10 depend upon their's, while the very reverfe is 
 true. 
 
 1 likewife exprefled my diilike of Mr. Neil's affrrtin*, that 
 
( * 2 3 ) 
 
 God hath given himfelf to all that believe and obey him. It is 
 evident from the fcope of the words, that he does not mean a 
 giving in poff>ffion> but in the go/pel offer. I accordingly ob- 
 served, that the declaration, * I am the Lord thy God' is direc- 
 ted unto all. Here my friend has again recourfe to his ufual 
 evafion ; if he gives himfeif to all, he certainly gives himfelf to 
 thefe who believe and obey him. But the queftion is this, Sir, 
 Does Mr. Neil's expreflion bear, that he gives himfelf to alJ, 
 or the reverfe, and you make no reply. The reader will ob- 
 ferve, that it is the plain import of Mr. Hutchifon's hackneyed 
 reply, that jhunning to declare the whole counfel of God, is 
 do way reproveable in a R.elief preacher ; if he has as much 
 fagacity, as not exprefly to contradict it. An exceedingly 
 honourable defence for almoft every particular ! 
 
 It is plain as broad day, that Mr. Neil's doctrine concerning 
 faith entitling us to the heavenly glory ; fuiftitutes our faiih 
 in the room of the righteoufnefs which it receives. This is fo 
 obvious, that it draws forth the ftrength of my opponent's 
 derifive talents, my fenfible phrafeology, &c. He replies, « If 
 ' fo, what will become of the orthodoxy of Paul, who fays, 
 « Rom. iii. 28. That a man is juftified by faith, without the 
 % deeds of the law ?' This is reafoning fo profound, that no 
 man in the world can found its depth. Can you fhow any 
 man the Ilmilarity, between faith entitling us to heaven ; and 
 being juftified by faith as a me an ? Could you adduce the 
 jpoftle afTerting, that faith entitles us to justification, you 
 might then aifert, that it entitles to heaven alfo; but the apoftle 
 abhorred fuch legal doctrines. It is neither faith, nor any 
 thing in ourfelres whatever, but the righteoufnefs of Chrift 
 alone which entitles us to every bleffing. If you know any 
 thing of the original, the words rendered by faith, literally 
 fignify, by means of faith, or by faith as a mean ; but the 
 ordinary meaning of the word entitle is very, different ; it Sig- 
 nifies the procuring caufe. The hireling's work entitles him 
 to his wages ; this is the plain and common fenfe of the 
 word. 
 
 Your reafoning, Sir is very curious. The fum of it is 
 this. The apoftle aflerts, that we aie juftified by faith, or 
 
( "4 ) 
 that it is the mean in our juftifkation ; and therefore we may 
 siTert, that faith entitles us unto, or that it is the procuring 
 caufe of the heavenly glorv. This is fublime ! it is to excel ! 
 He afks, am * I able to prove, that Mr. Neil might not teach 
 
 * that a m: n is entitled to heaven by faith in Chrift, in the 
 
 * fsme fenfe Paul teaches that a man is juflified by faith V It 
 ts generally hard to piove a negative; but here it is no diffi- 
 culty : tor the apoflle never teaches that faith entitles to any ■ 
 thing whatever. The reader will obferve, that it is orthodox ; 
 <JocVine in the Relief, that faith entitles us to heaven ; for en* 
 titling^ in the mouth of a Relief preacher, ilgnifies only the 
 means of entitling, 
 
 As a conclufion to his vindication of Mr. Neil's errors, he 
 informs his reader, that I tave * difcovered a new plan of fix* 
 
 * ing herelies. He very charitably makes all Mr. Neil's errors 
 
 * mine, becaufe he is certain I have read his lerrcons.' He 
 likewile informs his reader, that he has read only part of them. 
 IVlay we give you credit for this, Sir ? That you began to read 
 a volume of fermons, whole author, in your efteem, was a 
 burning and (Lining light ; and when feveral years are elapfed 
 
 v you have read only part of them ? You have certainly met 
 with (omething exceedingly difgufting, if this is not of a piece 
 with what follows. Through the whole of this ferious Deicant 
 he maintains, that I charge him with Mr. Neil's errors, merely 
 becaufe he has reed or perujed the fermons. After what the 
 reader has already feen of our author's ftritt attachment to 
 truth, he will be no wsy furprized to under ftand that my words 
 are, * It cannot 'be fuppofed that he never perufed them. He 
 ' knows they are common among thefe in connexion with him. 
 
 * Pie commends the author without the leaf! exception to any oi 
 
 * his doctrines, or caution to his reader. Telling us, he not 
 
 * only filled, but adorned his fiation in the church.* Can anj 
 thing be more diitant from truth, than to aflert, that I charge 
 bim with thele errors, merely becaufe he has read the fermons i 
 I might afk my Relief friends, what opinion they entertain o! 
 their Chieftain's csndor ? I 11 ill apprehend, that the plan of fix 
 ing htrefy, whether new .or old, is no unjull one. If I exto 
 »n author as a flat of the firft magnitude, without the leaft ex 
 xepfion to his ccclrines, although they are crammed with error 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 or caution to my people, although his writings are common a- 
 mong their hands : I know very little difference between this, 
 and reaching the fame errors rnyfelf. It were too much refptcl 
 to bis following fcene of drollery, founded on falfhood, to pay 
 the leaft attention to it ; for, good man, he has entirely forgot, 
 that the p.'ieQ's lips mould keep truth as well as knowledge. It 
 is true, he is evidently jefting ; but it was an obfervation of 
 one, that to fib in jeft, was to go laughing to 
 Do you really imagine, Sir, that there is no fin, in his Reve- 
 rence dealing deep in laughing mifreprefentation ? It is a 
 glaring evidence of a wretched caufe, when it cannot be fup- 
 ported, but by fnch di [graceful methods. 
 
 He proceeds, p. 92. to vindicate the enfnaring exprellions 
 contained in Mr. Baine's difcourfes : And introduces himfelf 
 with a flouriming panegyric on Mr. Baine. It is a matter to 
 me although he were an angel from heaven ; if he preach an- 
 other gofpel, I am warranted to withftand him to the face. 
 When Mr. Baine frequently reftricls the gofpel call to the pe- 
 vitent, and thefe who feel their need ; I obferved, that this 
 is evidently calculated to perfuade them, that their right to re- 
 ceive the blelTing is founded upon their penitency ; and to make 
 others apprehend, that they are unwarranted intermedlers. Mr. 
 Huichilon replies : If fmners, without exception, may take 
 the benefit of the golpel, thele who feel their need certainly 
 may; and therefore Mr. Baine's d( clrine is true. This only 
 Strengthens my argument ; for, if finners, without exception, 
 pjay take the btnefit of the gofpel, who authorizes Mr. B^ine, 
 or any mon, to be a'moft ever fingling out a particular character, 
 or two? Our author confiders it as a fufficient vindication, that 
 Mi Baine's c'oclrine is true. The native conlequence is, that if 
 the particulars on which a Relief minifter infifls are true; let 
 him conceal as much of the truth as he will, his doctrine is true f 
 he is improvable. Mr. Hutchifon may preach during life, that 
 s was the fuppofed Son of Jofeph, but never inform his 
 rers that he is the great God our Saviour: his doctrine is 
 as certainly true as Mr. Baine's; accordingly he cannot be 
 blamed. How ridiculous fuch a defence! Thefe who have 
 any acquaintance with the pride of the human heart, how na, 
 tural it is lor finners to bring a price in tbcli band, will readily 
 
( «»« ) 
 
 acknowledge, that if calls and invitations directed to the peni- 
 tent, are not well guarded, and others (hown their unqueftion- 
 able right, they are likely to enfnare many. Our author may 
 (how where MefTrs. Baine or Neil, have annexed a finglc cau- 
 tion to their numerous reftricled calls. 
 
 I obferved, that Mr. Baine's intention to preferve the gofpel 
 from any charge of licentioufaefs is laudable ; although my 
 opponent is certain, that I make no allowance. But the ex- 
 preflion, * grace reigns through righteoufnefs implanted in us, 
 is exceedingly unjuftifiable. This connects our inherent holi- 
 nefs with the Redeemer's righteoufnefs, as the cause of the 
 reign of grace. My friend afks me. ' Does not grace alfo 
 ' reign in the righteoufnefs of fancYification ?' I afk again, 
 Does Mr. Baine aflert, that grace reigns in righteoufnefs im- 
 planted ? No, Sir ; this is only a deceitful fubftitution of 
 phrafes : he alTerts, that grace reigns through righteoufnefs im- 
 planted. 
 
 I obferved formerly, that the expreffion, through righteouf- 
 nefs, fignifies, through righteoufnefs as the caufe. Can you 
 difproye it ? Nay, you never attempt it ; nor does Mr. Baine 
 give the remoteft hint, that he ufes the phrafe, in a fenfe en- 
 tirely different from his text. It is the apoftle's doctrine, that 
 grace reigns through Chrift's righteoufnefs, as the cause ; and 
 to eternal life, which includes implanted holinefs, as the effect. 
 You mention Eph. ii. 4. ; I afk if there is a fingle fyllable in 
 the palTage, concerning quickening as the caufe of grace's reign? 
 It is the plain import of this vindication, that grace reigning 
 through implanted holinefs; in other words, through our holi- 
 nefs as the caufe of its reign, is found /peech, which cannot be 
 blamed. The reader may judge of this for himfelf. 
 
 I exprefTed my diflike of Mr. Baine's afTertion, < That it be- 
 « longs to Chrift's royal power, as the head of his church, or 
 ' facred fociety, to prefcribe the terms of falvation.' — This is 
 calculated to bewilder numbers. I obferved alfo, that the terms 
 of falvation were prefcribed to the Saviour in the council of 
 peace, and fulfilled by him from the fordid manger to the ig- 
 nomineous tree. Htre our author charges me with ufing the 
 reprobated phrafe, becaufe I fpeak of terms of salvation 
 prefcribed to the Redeemer. But with your leave, Sir, or 
 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 without it, it is plain to a fchool-boy, that I exprefs my dif- 
 like at terms of salvation prefcribed unto, and to be per for m- 
 ed by guilty men. If I mould exprefs my diflike of afcribing 
 merit ,to guilty men, who offend in all things, would I be 
 chargeable with the reprobated phrafe, fhouM I afcribe merit 
 unto the blefled Redeemer ? Your reafoning is always con- 
 clufive ! 
 
 He informs me, that I mud fludy the Engliih language with 
 greater accuracy, before I can furniih a better phrafeology. 
 Had he aflerted, before I can furnifh a ivorfi, the reply had 
 been more difficult. According to my fcanty knowledge of the 
 language, the word term or terms, when applied to the re- 
 ceiving and enjoying any benefit, generally fignifies the condi- 
 tion on which our right to receive and enjoy is founded. This 
 is the ufual acceptation of it : And to tell guilty Tinners, that 
 faith, repentance, <bc. are the terms of falvation, is to tell 
 them, in other words, that thefe are the «ondition on which 
 their right to the bleilings of falvation is founded. It is pro- 
 bable that Baillie's account of the word, namely, condition or 
 ftipulaiion, will be difregarded ; he is too obfeure : our author 
 may confult the Penfioner's unliftable dictionary, where he will 
 find, that the flgnihcatton of the word is the fame. 
 
 You obferve, Sir, that Seceders difapprove of faith's andi- 
 tionality ; and it is true they do fo : but the explication given 
 by our Weftminfter divines, that faith is the mean, hand, or 
 inflrument which receives, is a far better phrafeology than terms 
 of falvation. And a free falvation, yet loaded with conditions 
 innumerable, every grace, every duty a condition, every bieP 
 fing which is any how connected with another bleding, on that 
 account the condition of it : this is not the doctrine of our 
 
 Confctfion, but a medley of inconfiltency It is fomewhat 
 
 mylterious, that this mould ha?e been maintained lately by 
 fome, who profefs a high regard for our Weitminder Con- 
 feflion. 
 
 That the reader may know diftincYiy what I diflike in this 
 particular, he muft underftand, that thofe who infill on terms 
 of falvation prefcribed unto, and to be performed by guilty 
 finoers j it is ufually Jailh, repentance, and fine nce t 
 
 which coultitute thele terms of falvation, or conditions upoa 
 
( »8 ) 
 
 which the finner's right to receive the bleffing is founded ; a 
 doctrine which every Calvinift, who knows his own principles, 
 will abhor. It is not merely the Relief which I have in my 
 eye, as my friend aiTerts ; thefe are expreffions perhaps more 
 common with fome others, than the Relief: Mr. Hutchifon, 
 however, defends the enfnaring expreffion, and is very certain, 
 that I cannot invent a better phrafeology. 
 
 I obferved, that it was certainly an undefigned oversight in 
 Mr. Baine, to explain Col. i. 1 9 . « For it pleafed the Father ■, that 
 * in him fhould all fulnefs dwell ;' as including the Redeemer's 
 ejjhntial fulnefs ; it overturns his fupreme Deity, and felf-exi£ • 
 fence, by making his effential fulnefs a fruit of the Father's 
 pleafure. It is no overfight, however, with Mr. Hutchifon ; 
 and his defence fo pitiful, that he has no claim to a ferious 
 anfwer : but the folemnity of the fubject forbids one of a dif- 
 ferent kind. He replies ; * But, Sir, is not the Father pleafed 
 4 that the fulnefs of the Godhead dwells in Chrift ?' But, Sir, 
 is this the apoftle's expreffion ? Can any man be fo blind, as 
 not perceive your mangling the words of the Holy Ghoft ? 
 That the Father is pleased, that it does dwbll in Chrifr, is 
 your affertion, and may be expreffive of pleafure in it. But 
 the apoflle does not alien, that the Father is pleased, that 
 it does dwell in him ; which may be expreffive of pleafure 
 in it ; But, he aflerts, It pleased the Father, that it should 
 dwell in him, which is as evidently expreflive of its being 
 a fruit of the Father's pleafure. — You fhould fludy the Englifh 
 language more accurately, before you venture to quibble, in 
 oppofition to the general opinion of orthodox divines, on fuch 
 a momentuous point of doctrine. 
 
 Befides, Sir, the original expreffion puts it beyond queftion, 
 that it is mentioned as a fruit of the Father's pleafure. It 
 would be juft as literally rendered, it seemed good to the 
 Father, that all fulnefs should dwell in him. You may find 
 the very fame expreffion rendered it fiemed good, Rouj. xv. 2 6. 
 And if ever it has a different fignification, the words are in a 
 quite different contexture. It would be no lofs to you, to be 
 rather better acquainted with the original. 
 
 To make fhort work, the reader muft underfhnd, that 
 Mr. Hutchifon mainuLus, thac Col. ii. 19. * It pleafed the 
 
( "9 ) 
 
 ' Father, that in h\\r\ fl)ou J d all fulnefs dwell,' Includes Chrift's 
 effenturf-fxAaef* ; that fueh an expofition of it is found and 
 good. The rranflation is plain, that, be the fulnefs what it 
 will, it is a fruit of the Father's pleafttre ; the original leaves 
 no room to doubt of it ; nor can he mention a found expofkor 
 who ever underftood it in a different fenfe. If this vindica- 
 tion is found, the Redeemer's eften rial fulnefs is a fruit of the 
 Father's ple^fure, and he is not the felf-exiftent God. — If my 
 friend is an avowed Arian, he talks confident with him'elf ; if 
 he is not, how wretched his caufe, when he mud vent the 
 very foul of Arianifm in order to defend it ? You make your- 
 felf very merry, Sir, on this particular ; but your filly jetting, 
 concerning a mod momentuous article of the Chritlian faith, 
 is truly de^eftable. How was your mind impreflTed with a fenfe 
 of the Redeemer's fupreme Deity, when you could talk like a 
 buffoon, in your arguing concerning it ? 
 
 The penitent's right to (ue for pardon, I connected with a 
 former particular, as Mr. Hutchifon's reply is become quite 
 ftale. I obferved, that Mr. Baine is quire ambiguous, with 
 refpecl to the godly exercifing unbelieving legal fear ; our au- 
 thor gives a tolerable account of it, but whether it is Mr. Baine's 
 meaning or not, is as uncertain as ever. 
 
 Mr. Baine likewife aliens, ' The purpofe which cleaves to 
 
 * the Lord, is proof againft feduclion.' This, I obferved, 
 afcribes by far too much to the purpofes of the creature ; and 
 that it is God's purpofe, Chrift's purchafe, be. which preferve 
 the godly from feduclion. He replies ; ' That thefe things 
 
 * confift well together -,' and, that * built on fnch a bottom, 
 
 * the pious refolutions of good men, are proof againft final 
 
 * apofiacy.' I anKver, It is found doctrine then with Mr. 
 Hutchifon, to afcribe that to our purpofes, which is true only 
 of the bottom on which they are built. According to this de- 
 fence, there c*n be no harm in afferting, that our purpofes 
 entitle us uato the heavenly glory. If they are evangelical, 
 they are bottomed on a Redeemer's merit, which entitles to 
 eternal blifs ; and our purpofes, and the Redeemer's merit 
 conlift well together: As his merit move entr.'es r o heaven ; 
 fo it is our reafonablc fervice to rejbhc to improve ic as our 
 
 R 
 
( 130 ) 
 
 plea for grace to preferve from apo/racy. Nor is it true, as 
 he aflerts, that the pious refolutions of good men. are proof 
 againft final apoftacy ; the bloflbm of their bett refolutions fre- 
 quently goes up like the duff. ; and it is not their refolutions, 
 but an invifible hand fupporting them, which preferves them 
 from total and final fednction. Whatever (hare our author's 
 puipofes may have of the work, he means that they Ihould 
 have a decent fhare of the praife. — Away, Sir, with fuch legal 
 pride, afcribing, that to your feeble purpofes, which is due 
 to free and fovereign grace alone ; proud nature has no occa- 
 fion for fuch excitements. 
 
 My friend does not attempt to vindicate Mr. B.iine, from 
 the charge of inconfiftency, in reprefenting prtfbyterian go- 
 vernment and difcipline, as a capital mean of divine inttitution 
 in one page; but a mere circumfhntial, lefs important matter 
 in the next ; but proceeds to defend one of his principal argu- 
 ments for loofe terms of admiffion. * Nor can faction or 
 
 * party fpirit give a good reafon, why imperfection in know- 
 
 * ledge fhould impede this communion, when deficiency in 
 
 * point of holinefs has not the fame effect ' It is the fum of 
 this argument, that defecls in holinefs, and deft£i> in knowledge, 
 muft have the fame effect with refpect unto admiffion to, or 
 exe'ufion from the feals of the new covenant : And as every 
 defect in holinefs ought not to exclude, fo neither ought every 
 defect in knowledge. I know of none who maintain, that 
 every defect in either of thefe, ought to exclude from feeling 
 ordinances. 
 
 I obferved, however, that defects in holinefs allowed of, 
 perfijied in, yea, maintained to be juft, and fcripturah ought 
 molt certainly to exclude from tealing ordinances ; and there- 
 fore, according to our author's own argument, defects in know- 
 ledge allowed of, perfifled in, maintained to be juft and fcrip> 
 tural, mud certainly exclude from fealing ordinances alfo. 
 But this is evidently the cafe with Epiicopalians, and others, 
 with refpect to church government ; they allow of. they prrfift 
 in, they maintain, that their notions are juft and Jcriptural. 
 Mow, as de/ecls in holirels, of thh kind, mutt exclude, fo ac- 
 cording to our author's argument, their defefts in knowledge 
 of the fame kind, mutt certainly exclude them alio. This is 
 
( **I ) 
 
 fo obvioos to everyone, that my friend can make no reply, 
 but is obliged, as ufual, to have recourfe to evaflon. ' But 
 * this, fays he, is an unfair reprefentation of the cafe. What 
 1 man, or focifty of men will plead, that ignorance is juft 
 f and fcriptural.' Not fo fa ft. Sir, this is only a quibble ; for, 
 if you pleafe to rt collect yourfelf, my words are, what you 
 call ignorance. Do vou imagine, that Epifcopalians will main- 
 tain nothing to he juft or fa iptural, which Frefbyterians call 
 ignorance ? Nor can you write a few fentences, till you give 
 the fame reprefentation. ' Epifcopals, and Independents, fay 
 ' you, labour under a miftake about their peculiar forms of 
 
 t* government.' I may reply in your own words, this is an 
 unfair reprefentation of the cafe. What m^n, or fociety of 
 men will maintain, that a mi/lake is juft and fcr iptural I Cut 
 Epifcopals, ?nd others, will maintain, that what you call a 
 mi/lake about capital means of divine inftirution, hjuft pnd 
 fcriptural. Your miftake is little better than ignorance. — Be- 
 tides, I always thought that a miftake included ignorance, un- 
 lefs it be what fome have Ailed, a wilful miftake, which does 
 not render it Jcfs criminal. Your judicious obfervation on ig- 
 norance, and immediately fubftnuting miftake in its phce, is 
 Sonly *n evidence, thfit fomething you mull fay, but you know 
 not what. Perhaps you fpurn it ignorance, as a term quite 
 too rude for the fupremacy and hierarchy ; biu let us now 
 fubftiture miftake in the place of ignorance, and try what fup- 
 port it affords to your decifive argument. Let us fuppofe then, 
 that one applies to Mr Hutchifon for admiflion, and addrefJes 
 him to this purpofe ; I am deficient in a v. ety of particular?, 
 which you call branches of holinefs ; but I allow, I approve, 
 and maintain, that what you call defecls in hol-nefs, is juft 
 and fcriptural ; and am refolved as yet to p^rflft ; he would 
 moft certainly be excluded. Well, fuppofe an Epifcopal applies 
 to him for admiflion, if he is candid, he would addrefs him 
 thus : You maintain, that I am labouring under a miftake, 
 about what you reckon capital means of divine inflitiition, 
 which muft be no trivial matter in your view. But I allow, I 
 approve of what you call a miftake, I maintain, that it hjuft 
 and fcriptural ; I approve of the fupremacy. and hit rarely , 
 and am refoKed to perfift in oppofing your captital mearjs as 
 
 R 2 
 
( *3 2 ) 
 
 unfcrtpiural. Now, if defects in holinefs, and knowlege, have 
 the fame efflcl, it is clear as bioad day, that his Epifcopal's 
 miftake muft unqueftionably exclude him, and my friend's 
 judicious critkiim en ignorance affords no fupport to his ruin- 
 ed argument. 
 
 From what I have now obferved, it is plain to a demonftra- 
 tion, that if im perfection in holinefs allowed of, and perfijied 
 in, ou^ht to exclude from fealing ordinances; his Epifcopal's 
 imperfection in knowledge, h s ignorance, his miftake, call it 
 what you will, fince it is allowed of, and perjifted in, muft of 
 jieceility exclude him ; or the efF<.c!s of partial knowledge, and 
 partial hoinefs cannot be the fame. 
 
 Befides, our author's argument is not only calculated to2 
 fmocth tie wrinkled brow of error ; it carts a very favourable 
 eye on immorality alfo. According to his doctrine, imperfec- 
 tion in knowledge, which conftitutes error, gro/s error, a direSl 
 brtach of the (econd commandment, does not exclude from 
 fealing ou'inances. This is aliened in the mod pofitive manner, 
 in his cel< brated paraphrase. Now, if according to his argu- 
 ment, imperfection in knowledge and holinefs, muft have the 
 fame erTecl: ; it is the natural, obvious, and undeniable confe- 
 quence, that imperfection in holinefs, which conftitutes* immo- 
 rality, gro/s immorality , a direct breach of the moral law, muft 
 not exclude ; other wife the effect of partial knowledge, and 
 partial holinefs, cannot be fame. Nor can we exercife discip- 
 line for thefe imperfections in holinefs, which conftitute grofs 
 immoraliry ; for, if they ought not to exclude from fealing 
 ordinances, they cannot expofe to cenfure. 
 
 But finding himself unable to fupport his argument, in his 
 ufual manner, he h?s rccourfe to alTertion, and then he is ne- 
 ver at a lofs. ' If a man err only in things which confift with 
 
 * the power of godlinefs, fays he, partial ignorance will not, 
 
 * oti fcriptural grounds, exclude from fealing ordinances, more 
 
 * than partial holinefs.' The reader muft give him implicit 
 faith for this; a proof was troublefome. By the power of 
 godlinefs, I fuppofe, he means the reality of it ; for, although 
 there may be a firm without the power , there cannot be the 
 reality without the pswer, in lefs or greater mrafure. Accord- 
 ingly, this is juft his vijib'.e fiintfbip, in other words. j If a 
 

 ( r 33 ) 
 
 1 man err not in fuch things, as evidence him to be a ftrsnger 
 « to ihe reality of godlinefs, he mull not be excluded.' But 
 for this, the reader has only our author's aiTertion. Your 
 terms of communion, Sir, are juft as vague and indeterminate 
 as ever. I afk, what is that partial knowledge and hoiinefs, 
 which ought to exclude ? You will allow, that there may be 
 fuch partial knowledge and hoiinefs as ought to exclude, and 
 expofe to the cenfures of the houfe of God. But according to 
 your parapbrafe. partial knowledge which conftitutes errtr, 
 grots error, mull no' exclude : of conlequence, according to 
 yonr Achillean argument, partial hoiinefs, which conftitutes 
 immorality, grc/s immorality, mud not exclude. An excel- 
 lent tuo-lebv'd gate for promifcuous admilTion. "Will you 
 never be explicite with refpec"t to your teims of admiffion, that 
 we may judge if they are fcriptural or not ; but always huddle 
 them up in ambiguity ? 
 
 On this particular, I find a very heavy charge exhibited, be- 
 caule I aliened, that party fpirit is carried as high in the Relief, 
 as in any other denomination. He replies; * But, Sir, though 
 
 • Mr. Neil had been of the fame fentiments you mention ; is 
 
 * it fait to charge his furviving Brethren with them ?' But, Sir, 
 where have I done fo ? I only faid, that this was done in the 
 Relief ; was not Mr. Neil in the Relief? My aiTertion, like Mr. 
 Baine's doctrine, is certainly true. He adds, i That I have 
 ' pi oven that Mr. Neil's fentiments are chargeable on me, for 
 ' I have read his iermons.' I cannot alTctt, that you now 
 piibiifh a moral falihood : You know it was a faying of a Scotch 
 Judge, that a man may repeat a lie, till he is convinced himfelf 
 that it is truth. I have anfwered this already in its place, to 
 which. I tefer the reader, and leave him to l;^own meditation 
 concerning your veracity. 
 
 Mr. Baine alien?, p. 280. That Ch rift's teflament was made 
 ' in behalf of thofe who were given him out of the world.' — - 
 Here he confounds the making of Chrift's teftament, with the 
 making of the covenant of grace. Our author has no reply, 
 except his trite one. * If Chrift's teftament, fays he, was made 
 1 in behalf of all who hear the gofpel, it was in behalf of thole 
 4 who were given him out of the world ; — and therefore Mr. 
 1 Baine's doclriae is gco«.' i aik, Does Mr. Maine's expref- 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 fion bear, that it was made in behalf of all who hear the gofpel 
 or the reverfe ? It is the obvious imporr o* Mr. Hurchifon's d'< 
 fence, that it is good doclrine to conceal one half of the counfe 
 of God. 
 
 In the fame page it is aflerted, that thefe who were givei 
 to Chrift out of the world ; « If we confider them as defcribec 
 ' in the gofpel revelation, and qualified for the bit- .Tings promif 
 
 * ed there, they are believers in Chrift, his willing and hoh 
 < people.' On this I obferved, that faith, or believing, is j 
 promifed blefling ; and therefore according to this doctrine, th* 
 elect muft believe, in order to qualify themfelvcs for believing 
 Mr. Hutchifon replies, « Mr. Baine refers to the promifes of t 
 
 * ternal life in heaven, in this pafTage ; and faith and holinef 
 
 * are excellent preparations for it, if the word of God be true. 
 I am very certain, that rbe word of God is true ; but I arr 
 equally certain, there is no fuch reference in the pafTage ; anc 
 therefore not one word of this apology is true. The word; 
 themfelves are a plain contradiction to our author's afTertion 
 It is the bleflings promifed in the gofpel revelation, is it only 
 the bleflings of glory that are promifed in the gofpel ? It i: 
 plain as broad day, that Mr. Baine refers to the bleflings ol 
 grace as well as glory. In the preceding particular, »t is al 
 the bleflings which Chrift meritei by his death. In the pafftgc 
 under coniideration, it is the bleflings promifed in the gofptl re. 
 vclaiion. In ihe following particular, it is all that is promifea 
 in the hook of God. Where are we to find this reference oi 
 yours ? To afTert a downright fiction, and with a Jneer too, 
 is raafterly ! 
 
 I exprefTed my diflike of Mr. Baine's aflertion, that the death! 
 of Chrift ■ rende;* the Deity placable :' And obferved, that 
 
 * fcripture allure* us, that he is really pppeafed, or reconciled; 
 ' The Lord is weil pleafed for his righteoufnefs fake.' He 
 replies, very true, he is fo ;— - he is well-pleafed with what the 
 
 * Surety has done and fuffered in their ftead.' — But the gra- 
 cious declaration runs, that he is well pleafed for, or, on ac- 
 count or what Chrift has done; intimating, that he is well pleafed. 
 with finners. He likewife afks if I can prove, * that he is ac- 
 
 * tually reconciled to the elect themfelves, till they believe in 
 « his Son.' And adds, : Art then 2 teacher in Krael, isc! 
 
 
( *3S ) 
 
 is if this were exceedingly plain. — I can prove nothing con- 
 cerning ^^/reconciliation, till you explain yourfelf. lam 
 rertain, th it the elect on their party are not reconciled unto 
 3o6 till they believe on hi* Son : But God being reconciled 
 :o ihtm, is a different matter. The fcripture allures us, that 
 Chrift has made reconciliation for fin, Dm. ix. 24. Heb. 
 i. 17. Now : a gracious God, providing a Surety from eter- 
 nity, is an abundant evidence, that he is placable in himfeif: 
 But having received fatisfaction from the Surety, he is not 
 merely placable, but he is appeafed, he is reconciled \ he is in 
 Chrifl rtconciling the world to himfeif, 2 Cor. v 19. 
 
 But as you manage this particular in the way of queflion, 
 allo;v me to put the following in my turn. 1. Did the re- 
 conciliation nude by the death, of Cbrift, only render the Deity 
 placable ; but did not appeafe, or reconcile him ? And muft 
 our believing make up the imperfections of that reconciliation 
 made by ihe death of Chrill ? 2. Can you prove, that the; 
 Deity is not truly legally reconciled unto the elect by the death 
 of Chrift ? 3. Cm you prove, that the Deity may not be 
 truly legally reconciled to the elect, antecedent to what you 
 call aclual reconciliation, be what it will ? 4. Nay, can you 
 prove, that he may be legally, but not aclually reconciled ? 
 
 5. Can you prove, that there can be no true le^al reconcilia- 
 tion to the elect, prior to a judicial declaration of it, and ap~ 
 plication of it to the confeiences of individuals in believing > 
 
 6. If we attend to the fcripture fenfe of reconciliation when 
 applied unto God, it is fomething different, I apprehend, from 
 complacency in the finner as a believer. If I can guefs what 
 you mean by aclual reconciliation ; you confound reconcilia- 
 tion to, and complactKcy in the linner as a believer. I there- 
 fore afk if you can prove, that there can be no true legal re> 
 
 I conciliation unto the elect as fuch, antecedent to complacency 
 in them as believers ? Once more, if there can be no hue 
 legal reconciliation prior to believing, muft not all the troubles 
 of the godly, antecedent to faith, be branches of the curfe, 
 inflicted by God as nn irreconciltd judge ? I)ut how can the 
 cm ft-, or any branch of it, be inflicted on the elect, when 
 
 , Chrift has compleuly exhauHed it as their Surety ? — Till you 
 liaic the difference between legal and aflual rcconciiution ; 
 
( i3* ) 
 
 nd prove that reconciliation to, and complacency in, are fyno- 
 nimous terms in fcriptuve language ; and give a fatisfying an. 
 fvver to the queries propofed ; I mutt conlude, that intricate 
 points of doctrire may appear very obvious to fome, becaufe 
 they are deft'rute of intellectuals to difcern the difficulty. Art 
 thou a teacher, &c. 
 
 The reader mull nnderfrand, that the denth of CHrift ren- 
 dering the Deity placable, is fterling coin, a (fandard phrafe: 
 with Arminians, and exprefTive of the very foul of their fcheme. 
 It imports, that the death of Chrtlr has only rendered the Deity 
 reconcile able, or that he may be reconciled ; and that it is our 
 faith and repentance, cSrc. which muft reconcile him. If this 
 doctrine of Arminians, which Mr. Hotchifon fo (Irennonfly 
 defends, is true ; me death of Criit is not a perfect fat is fac- 
 tion, and our faith and repentance mud effectuate that for us, 
 in the eye of a placable God, which the death of h'13 only be- 
 gotten Son could not accomplifh ; and a decent fliare of recon- 
 ciliation-work attributed to ourfelves. 
 
 In oppoiltion unto this, it is the doctrine of Calvinifrs; ; 
 that God having received compleat fatisfacYion to his law and 
 juftice from his own Son, as the fubftitute Surety of thefe who 
 were given unto him ; he is not merely placable, but he is 
 appeafed, he 'is reconciled, he is ivell-pleafid through the righ- 
 teoufnefs of his only begotten Son ; and the dury of miniftersi 
 to proclaim, not only that he is placable, but that he is appeafed, 
 reconciled, that he is in Chrift reconciling the world unto him-' 
 felf. And as it is a fecret which God has referved to himfelf, 
 who they are vv;io were given unto his Son, until the day de- 
 clare it ; it is the duty of minifters to proclaim unto all with- 
 out exception, that God is reconciled through the death of his 
 Son, that he is well-pleafed, that he has received compleat fa- 
 tisfaclion ; and that they have an undoubted right to apply to 
 him, not merely as a God placable, and who may be recon- 
 ciled by their faith and repentance, but as a reconciled God 
 and Father in Chrift Jefus; to give faith and repentance. 
 
 I have been too tedious on this particular, but it is a mofr mo- 
 mentuous article of the doctrines of free grace which nay op- 
 ponent attempts to overthrow, and deferves a volume, inftead 
 of a few pagfs, in its vindication. And if my friend expected 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 ID get off with his fuperficial flourish on fuch an interesting 
 branch of doctrine, he was a little miftaken. According to 
 his vindication, a Relief minifter may ufe the ftandard-phrafes 
 of Arminians, as much as he will, although they rob the Saviojr 
 of the glory of reconciliation-work, and are well calculated 
 to enfnare: If he can wrangle out fome (trained unnatural 
 fenfe of them, it is found (peech which cannot be blamed. 
 Like the reft of his evafions, it is juft a proclamation of pro- 
 tection to the enfnaring phrafes of heretics, till the limes are 
 fo favourable, that they may walk abroad and deceive the na- 
 tions, without any pafsport from their Protector. 
 
 I have now confidered his defence of the expreflions cenfured : 
 Itconfifts principally of evafions, fentences mangled and tortured, 
 till they confefs as he pleafes ; a ftrenuous vindication of the 
 dialect of heretics ; now a Baxterian, next an Arminian, and 
 even an Arian tenet necetTary to embellifh the defence. All 
 this is quite orthodox with Mr. Hutchifon. The reafoning 
 of the Abiezrite with the men t F his city may juftly be applied 
 to the mod part of my opponent's defence. ' Will ye plead 
 f for Baal ? Will ye fave him ? If he be a god let him plead 
 ' for himfelf.' Will you plead, Sir, for Baxterians, Arminians, 
 Arians? Will you protect their enfnaring expreflions ? Perhaps 
 ihey will not applaud you, as it is probable they will imagine, 
 that they can defend their tenets themfelves, to much better 1 
 purpofe. 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 Mr. Hutcbiforis Charge of grofs Error confidered, 
 
 OU R author now proceeds to correct my ruinefs, inci? 
 vility, akufe, and illiberality ; by charging me with a 
 number of errors t real and of a very dangerous nature and 
 tendency. But he only difplays his own ignorance, good man, 
 and expofes himfelf to a little more needful correction ; for ia 
 charging me with ter. } he has vented triple that number. He 
 informs his reader, that he is not to follow my worthlefl ex- 
 ample , in fabricating errors where there arc none. Had it not 
 
 S 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 been for confclous guilt, an introduction of this fort would 
 have been fpared, and the reader left to judge for himfelf. 
 
 His fir (I charge of grofs error is founded on my aliening, 
 That the ceremonial law did n§t require moral duties. ' This, fays 
 ' he, is direclly contrary to the Confeffion of Faith, which 
 < teacheth, Chap. xix. feet. 3. That the ceremonial jaw hold- 
 ' eth forth divers inftruclions in moral duties.' — I reply: To 
 hold forth divers inftrucYions of moral duties is one thing ; and 
 to require the duties thernfelves, with the authority of a law, 
 is another, and very different thing. The ant holds forth di- 
 vers inftrucYions to Mr. Hutchifon of moral duties. Is it be- 1 
 come a law to you, Sir, authoritatively requiring the difcharge 
 of a variety of moral duties ? Neither does our Confeffion 
 aflert, that the ceremonial law required moral duties, but only 
 afforded mftruclion concerning them. The ceremonial law 
 required a variety of rites in the cleanfing of lepers ; thefe 
 held forth a variety of inftrucYions of moral duties : but the 
 ceremonial law required only the ritual part, the moral law 
 required the moral duties. An ordinary genius may hunt he- 
 refy, or vend it ; but my friend can difplay his dexterity in 
 herefy hunting, and vending at once, and palm it on the Con. 
 feiTion, while it aiTerts no fuch thing. Our Weltminfter di- 
 vines had, at leafr, a moderate (hare of common fenfe, Sir : you 
 Ihould never drag them in - to countenance your abfurdities. 
 He adds, 
 
 It is contrary alfo to fcripture, Gal. v. 3. * For I teftify 
 ' again to every man that is circumcifed, that he is a debtor 
 * to do the whole law.' — He is prudent enough to pafs this 
 text without any explication, becaufe he grievoufly perverts it : 
 He adduces it as a proof, that the ceremonial law required 
 moral duties. I defire the reader to obferve, that in this paf- 
 (age the apoftle is evidently fpeaking to profelTed Chriftians ; 
 and therefore, if this paflage refpecls the requirements of the 
 ceremonial law, as our author maintains ; it is not only what 
 it required under the Jewim difpenfation, but what it required 
 of Chriitians in the apoftle's days. I fhall (how the reader the 
 obvious meaning of the palTage in a few words. A number 
 of thefe Galatians had imbibed the legal notion, that their ce- 
 remonial fervices, and moral duties, were to be connected with 
 
( *39 ) 
 
 what Chrift had done, in order to conftitute their juftifying 
 righteoufnefs. The apoftle therefore afTures them, that if they 
 would perform one branch of a juftifying righteoufnefs, they 
 behoved to perform the whole ; for Chrift would either fur- 
 nifh them with a complete, or no juftifying righteoufnefs. 
 And as they obferved circumcifion as a branch of their juftify- 
 ing righteoufnefs, they excluded themfelves from any benefit 
 by what Chrift had done; ahd on this ^ccount, and not be- 
 caufe the ceremonial law requires any thing of Chriftians, they 
 behoved to work out a juftifying righteoufnefs, or obey the 
 whole law. Agreeable to this, he declares to them in the fol- 
 lowing verfe, ' Chrift is become of none erTecl: unto you, who- 
 * foever of you are juftified by the law; ye are fallen from 
 4 grace.' Plainly implying, that it was their feeking to be 
 juftified by the law, which bound them to do tl e whole hw ; 
 of the fame import with verfe 21. of the preceding chapter, 
 ' Tell me, ye who deflre to be under the law, do ye nor hear 
 4 the law ?' If ye will have recourfe to the law. ye muft hear, 
 or do whatever it requires. — From this fhort hint, it is obvious, 
 that the pafTage has no connection wiih the ceremonial law re* 
 quiring moral duties, but imports, that if men will have re- 
 courfe to the Jaw for righteoufnefs, they muft obey the law in 
 perfection. 
 
 Having now briefly fhown, that his charge is entirely 
 groundlefs ; it will not be improper, to turn the chafe, and 
 confider what errors he has vented, in attempting to fupport 
 his charge. The intereft of truth requires it. 1. He is dharge- 
 able with blending the ceremonial and moral law j whereas the 
 ceremonial law required the ritual, the moral law required the 
 moral duties. 2. He is chargeable wfth attempting to palm 
 this error on our Confeflion, becaufe it aiferts, and very juftly, 
 that the ceremonial law held forth inftru nons of. t or concern- 
 ing moral duties. 3. With perverting the meaning of the 
 Holy Ghoft, by quoting Gal. v. 3. as a proof that circumcilion 
 required Chriftians to do the whole lawj While the obvi 
 meaning is, that if they would bi juftified by, they 
 to no the whole law. 4. VvMth perverting th< 
 of an ordinance of God. fin '</, like 
 
 baptifm under the New Telia me nt, was a feaJ of ingrafting 
 
 S 2 
 
( M° ) 
 
 into Chrift ; and included an engagement on the finner's part 
 to be the Lord's, or in the ftrength of promiltd grace, to per- 
 form every moral duty. But the feals of God's covenant do 
 not formally require any duty, but our receiving, includes an 
 engtgement on our part ; but flill it is the moral law which 
 requires every moral duty. It is the narive confequence of 
 our author's argument, that circumcifion, an Old-Tefhment 
 feal of the covenant, required of Chriftians, the performance 
 of every moral duty. According to his argument, our divines 
 *ete guilty of a palpable cmilTion in their Catecbifms. After 
 what is baptiim ? They ought to have inferted another, viz. 
 What moral duties does bapiifm require of us? Its require- 
 ments are certainly as extenfive, as the requirements of cir- 
 cumcifion. Here we have the deflgn of an ordinance of God 
 entirely perverted. 5. In his celebrated paraphrafe, he main- 
 tain?, that to obferve any part of the ceremonial lav, as a 
 branch of God's worfbip, after the death of Chrifr, was error, 
 grofs error, a direcl breach of jhe fecond command. Here he 
 maintains, that thefe Galatians, obferving circumcifion in this 
 
 Canner, a branch of the ceremonies, bound them to do the 
 hole law. Agreeable to bis own aiTertion, he maintains, 
 that error, grofs error, a breach of the fecond command bound 
 thefe Galatians to do the whole law. You have now com- 
 pleated half a decade of errors in fupport of your firft charge. 
 Tour new-obligation brethren, as you difcreetly (Hie them, 
 will certainly congratulate you, Sir: you maintain, that at the 
 death of Chrifr, the ceremonial law was diverted of the autho- 
 rity of the law-giver ; but, that a number of years after, when 
 it was only ?n k-olatrous rite, it required perfect obedience at 
 the hand of the primitive Chiiftians. This is a fource of ob- 
 ligation truly new. 
 
 His fecond charge of grievous error is founded on my aflert- 
 ing, ' If there are moial duties which the light of nature can- 
 4 not difcover, and the Heathen deftitute of any particular re- 
 1 vclaticn of them, it will not be alledged that fuch duties are 
 ' binding en them : — they cannot be binding on them.' By 
 thefe duties which the light of nature cannot difcover, I mean 
 fuch moral duties, as are the relult of a gofpel revelation : 
 Such as, to beiieve the gojpel report ; to receive a gifted Chrifti 
 
( Mi ) 
 
 to worjhip C$d through a Mediator ; to bewail our remaining 
 unbtlicf ; to renounce our own right toufnefs ', &c. Such duties 
 being the refult of gofpel revelation, and not difcoverable by 
 the light, or law of nature, I alTerted, and do ftill ajffert, that 
 they are not binding on the Heathen ; accordingly they will 
 uot be condemned, nor puni(bed for the non-performance of 
 them. This is evident from that exprelTion of the apoftle, 
 Rom. ii. 12. ' As many as have finned without law, (hall alfo 
 * perifh without law ; and as many as have finned in the law, 
 ' (hall be judged by the law.' Where the apoftle tcacheth us, 
 that as Jews and Chriftjans, who have been privileged with reve- 
 lation, will be judged by the written law which they enjoyed ; 
 fo the Heathen nations will be judged by the law or fight of 
 nature which they enjoyed, and punifhed for their tranfgrefling 
 it. This, as far as I know, is the uniform doctrine of all the 
 Proreftant chcrcnes. When our author condemns the above 
 doctrine ss dreadfully erroneous, he mud be fuppofed to main- 
 tain, that the Heathen are bound to believe the gofpel report, 
 although they never heard it ; bound to receive the Saviour al- 
 though he was never offered to them, &r. Thefe are moral 
 duties, binding on thofe "who are privileged with the gofpel 
 revelation ; and therefore, according to his argument, mud 
 be binding on the Heathens alfo : a doctrine, in my view, 
 plainly antifcriptural, and big with abfurdities. To which of 
 the orthodox divines will our author turn to fupport him in 
 this opinion ? How abfurd to fuppofe, that the moral law mould 
 bind the Heathens to believe : and that they will be condemned 
 hereafter, for not believing that which was never revealed to 
 them, neither in their federal head, nor in their own pcrfons! 
 Certainly there can be no warrantable receiving without a prior 
 giving ; a man can receive nothing unlefs it be given him of God : 
 but Chrifl is rot given to the Heathen who never heard thegofpel. 
 Thffe, and other moral duties, which are the refult of enjoy- 
 ing the gofpel revelation, and binding on Chriftians ; being un- 
 diiceverable by the law or light of nature, I ftill maintain that 
 
 they neither are, nor can be binding on the Heathens -But 
 
 let us now hear what our author advances in fupport of his 
 charge. 
 
 i. He objeft?, that * according to this excellent doclrine, 
 
( M* ) 
 
 1 if the Heathen cannot difcover by the light of nature, that 
 
 < they are under the covenant of works, which they cannot, 
 
 * therefore they are not under that covenant/ My afTertion 
 was this ; that thefe moral duties, which the light of nature 
 could not difcover, were not binding upon the Heathens. I 
 cannot therefore underfland what connexion this objection has 
 with the point in hand, except our author maintain, that the 
 covenant of works is a moral duty, or that it is a moral duty, 
 to be under the covenant of works. It is true, the covenant 
 of works required of Adam perfect obedience; but to make: 
 the covenant of works itfelf a moral duty, or a moral duty to 
 be under it, appears to me a very uocouth phrafeology. If 
 he will make the coven nt of works a duty, at any rate it is not 
 a moral one, for it was pofnive, not flowing from the nature, 
 but from the will of God. 
 
 2. He objects, that « this is making the knowledge of the 
 « Heathen, the extent of moral duty to them ; — fo that the 
 
 < more ftupidly ignorant the Heathen are, and the lefs capable 
 1 to difcover moral duties, the fewer of them are they obliged 
 
 * to perform.' This, Sir, by no means follows from my af- 
 fertion, except you make the light or law of nature, and the 
 Heathens knowledge of it, the fame thing, which are certainly 
 very different. As there is a very great difference between the 
 written law which Chriftians enjoy, and their knowledge of it ; 
 fo alfo, there is a great difference betwixt the law of nature 
 which the Heathen are under, and their knowledge of it. I 
 afTerted nothing, concerning the knowledge of Heathens, or 
 what they do in fact difcover by the light of nature ; many of 
 thera through their ftupidity, prejudices, and want of attention, 
 difcover but very little of what they might know. My afTertion 
 plainly refpe&s what the light or law of nature difcovers, whe- 
 ther they attend to it or not. Your random charges have not 
 the (hadow of a foundation in any thing I have afTerted, which 
 may be plain to a child, from the following confideration. 
 Should I after t, that the light of divine revelation is the extent 
 of moral duty to Chriftians ; as well might you charge me with 
 maintaining, that their knowledge of it was the extent of duty 
 to them; and that the more brutithly ignorant they are, the 
 fewer duties they are bound to perform : Can any thing be 
 ©ore abfurd .' 
 
( '43 ) 
 
 You mention Paul as an old-fa fhioned divine, oppofing my 
 docVtne. But it was a mifunder (landing of Paul's docVine, 
 which led me into the mifteke, if you could prove that it is 
 one. The reader mzy confult Rom. i. from the I 8th verfe ; 
 where the apoftle fpeaking of the wrath of God revealed againft 
 the Heathens, founds it entirely on thefe things which the light 
 or law of nature difcovers. He declares, chap. ii. 12. that the 
 Heathen will be judged by the law of nature ; and do you 
 apprehend, thnt they will be judged by the law of nature, but 
 condemned, and punilhed for thefe things which it neither does 
 nor can difcover ? How abfurd ! — And yet it muft: be the cafe, 
 if thefe things which the law or light of nature cannot difcover 
 are binding on them. Thefe paflages of the apoftle contain 
 the very fubftance of what I aflerted ; I am apprehenfive, you 
 mean to fend the old-fafhioned divine a-packing for an heretic. 
 
 On this particular our author delivers docVine fomething 
 I uncommon. ' Such are the obvious confequences, fays he, 
 
 < of making the ability of Heathens to difcover moral duty, the 
 1 extent of moral obligation, and not the infinite perfection of 
 
 < the divine nature, which Paul and other old divines wer« 
 * wont to make the meafure and extent of moral duty.' The 
 
 i ability of Heathens to difcover, Sir, is your own aiTtrtion, nol 
 mine ; your obvious confequences are perhaps connected with 
 your own aflTertions, not with mine : You fight with your own, 
 
 I fhadow. But what do you mean, by the infinite perfe&ion of 
 the divine nature being the meafure and extent of moral duty ? 
 Had you any determinate idea fixed to thefe words when you 
 wrote them ? The perfections of God, you acknowledge, are 
 infinite ; is the extent of moral duty infinite, fince divine per- 
 fections are the extent of it ? It will be allowed, I fuppofe, 
 that the obedience of the faints triumphant perfectly correfpondi 
 to the extent of moral duty ; but according to your reafoning, 
 their obedience muft either be imperfecl, or it muft be infinite, 
 fince the ex \ nt of moral duty is infinite. You may # chufe which 
 of thefe you picafe. Such is the obvious confequence of this 
 afiertion. The infinite perfections of God, are the ground and 
 rcafrn why k very rational creature is .bound to obey him ; but 
 the liw of God Is a? evidently the meafure of that obedience. 
 The infinite pcrjeclion of the divine nature, the extent of 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 moral duty, Is an uncouth phrafco^ogy ; and it would be ex- 
 ceedingly kind, would you point our fo much as a Tingle in. 
 itance of its being adopted by Paul, or old-fa fhioned divines. 
 But a proof of afTertioBs is troublefome. 
 
 You quote the Conreffion of Faith at large, declaring, that 
 the covenant of works hinds all men to entire exatt obedience. 
 But this gives you no afliftance, unlefs the Weftminfter divines 
 maintain, that in order to render the obedience of Heathens 
 exact, it is indifpenfibly requifite, that they Ihould perform a 
 variety of duties, which the law or light of nature does not 
 dilcover ; yea, that they mould perform every morai duty 
 which the written word requires of Chriftians. It is quite idle 
 to make a noife about a trifle ; but are you really ferious, or 
 only jetting with your reader, when you afTert, that tbe Well' 
 minfter divines were fo ftupidly ignorant as to maintain, that 
 the covenant of works binds the Heathen to believe on Chrift, 
 although they never heard of him \ If this is true, it rnuft bind 
 them to that which they have no right to do : for finners right 
 to receive Ghrift is founded upon his being given unto them in 
 the word ; but he is not given unto them in the word or gofpel, 
 till they are privileged with it. 
 
 It is now time to confider what errors my opponent has 
 vented in fupporting his fecond charge. 
 
 1 . He exprefly maintains, that the Heathen are bound to 
 perform every moral duty contained in the written word, and 
 punifhable for non-performance ; in direct oppofition unto the 
 apoitle's doctrine, that they fhall pcrifh without the law, or 
 written word, Rom. ii. 12. He likewife reprefents the~ Moft 
 High as acting an inconfiilent part, in judging Heathens by the 
 law of nature, but punishing them for ever, for the non-per- 
 formance of thefe duties which the law, by which they are judg- 
 ed, neither revealed nor required. 
 
 2. He maintains, that the infinite perfe6iion of the divine 
 nature, is the extent of moral duty ; of confequence, that the 
 extent of moral duty is infinite ; And the obedience of glorified 
 faints, either infinite, or imperfect. 
 
 I (hall only obferve, end have done with this particular, that 
 if the reader would underftand our author's chimerical notion 
 of the extent oi moral ©hligatVon, he may confult p. x 1 8. 
 
( MS ) 
 
 where he afTerts, That 4 the child born into the world, is as 
 * perfectly under the obligations of the hw, as the man of 
 ' gray hairs.' The reality of obligation Is queflioned by none ; 
 and therefore he mull mean the extent of it, or he is quite 
 befide the queflion. Now, if the new-born child is as exten- 
 fively under the law's obligation, the child of a day old, is 
 bound to read, hear, pray, praife, to hearken to the inftruc- 
 tions of parents, reverence and obey them. And as the duties 
 of children and parents to one another are mutual, he is bound 
 to inftrudt, and correct his new-born child in cafe of irreve- 
 rence, or non-attention to his inductions. Can any thing 
 well be more abfurd ? And if the day after, why not the day 
 before the birth, the child is a rational creature, and a fubjeel 
 of the moral law, in the one cafe as well as the other ? But 
 I refrain from the derifion, which your notion juftly deferves. 
 Befides, how can much be required of them to whom much 
 is given, if according to your doctrine, the extent of moral 
 duty is infinite to all ? Our author, in a former publication, 
 laid it down as a general rule for the interpretation of prophe- 
 cies, that if one claufe of a verle is to be underflood literally, 
 the next claufe mud, by no means, be underflood figuratively. 
 I exprefled my diflike of this learned rule ; and his 
 
 Third charge of error is founded on my quoting Ifa. ii. 3. 
 in oppofition to his judicious rule of interpretation ; where 
 the firfl claufe Is evidently figurative^ and the next, ' he will 
 ' teach us of his ways' is as evidently literal My friend 
 makes himfelf very merry with this, and affirms, in the moft 
 confident manner, that the words, * he will teach us of his 
 ' ways,' are to be underflood figuratively ; and that to under- 
 fland them literally, afcribes a bodily form to the Mod High. 
 Here it is plain as broad day, he ftrikes out divine teaching 
 from the inventory of the church's privileges ; it is a mere fi- 
 gurative fomtthing, no man knows what. If it is faid, he did. 
 not mean to eitablifli fuch doctrine, I hope, in charity , he did 
 not. But it is the obvious and unavoidable confequence of 
 his doctrine, as he confidently maintains, that the words, He 
 luill teach us of his ways, are to be underflood figuratively. 
 A man teaches as literally by written, as by verbal indructions, 
 and the Mod High has frequently taught his church by both 
 
 T 
 
(' M« ) 
 
 tbe one and the other. But if he allows, that the words, he 
 will teach us, are to be underftood literally, no more is ne- 
 ceflary to fupport my aflertion. If he only means, that ways 
 and paths are to be underftood figuratively, where then his 
 excellent rule of interpretation ? Not only is one claufe un- 
 derftood literally, and the next figuratively ; but one branch 
 of a claufe literally and the next branch figuratively. Judi- 
 cious devifer of general rules ! — But even allowing him to pick 
 out two words inftead of the claufe, his confident aflertion, 
 that to underftand them literally, afcribes a bodily form to the 
 Moft High, bewrays only childifh inattention (to call it no worfe) 
 to the import of fcripture language. By the Lord's ways, we 
 are fometimes to underftand, the ways in which he is faid to 
 walk in his providence, «. Thy way is in the fea, and thy path 
 1 in the great waters,' and the words are evidently figurative. 
 But as generally we are to underftand, the ways and path* 
 which he prelcribes to his people to walk in, * Teach me thy 
 * ways, and then will I walk in thy paths.' And they are ftiled 
 his ways, becaufe he prefcribes them unto his people ; and 
 approves of them. But it is evident to a demonftration, that 
 this laft is the fenfe of the pafTage in queftion, ' We will walk:* 
 not io much as the appearance of afcribing walking to the Moft 
 High. Now, after all your reverend^ judicious drollery, for 
 which you are fo juftly celebrated in every corner of the Relief, 
 will you be fo kind as to (how us the connection, between the 
 fvloft High preferring ways to his people to walk in, on ac- 
 count of which, they are ftiled his ways, and being himfelf 
 pofTefled of a bodily form. Your obvious unavoidable confe- 
 quence, fair deduction, is evidently a reverie of your own 
 imagination, for not a fingle fyllable in the pafTage concerning 
 the Moft High walking, but his people; We will walk. Are 
 you capable, Sir, of blufhing at ignorance detected ? 
 
 Allowing you, to pick out a word or two, inftead of the 
 fentence, and torture and wreft the meaning of my expreffions; 
 you can only infer from them, that the foul walks in paths as 
 the body does. And quietly between ourfelves, Sir, your re- 
 marks on this paflage, would tempt one to think, that fome 
 fouls are compounded of matter, not very much fublimated, 
 and little impropriety in afcribing walking unto them in the 
 

 ( M7 ) 
 
 literal fenfe. On this particular, my opponent is chargeable, 
 I. With the grofs error of denying divine teaching, aliening 
 in the moll confident manner, that the words, « he will teach 
 c us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths,' are a mere 
 figurative expreffion. 2. With maintaining, that the Moft 
 High cannot prefcribe. ways to his people, without a bodily 
 form. 
 
 His fourth charge of error is founded on my afferting, that 
 if our Redeemer had no call in providence to occasional duties, 
 of the firft table ; there was no reafon why he mould perform 
 either thefe, or relative duties of the fecond, which were not 
 required of him in that ftation in which he was placed, or ca- 
 pacity in which he acted ; and his non-performance of them, 
 no argument againft their morality. On this my friend makes 
 a hideous noife ; charges me with impiety, blafphemy, deftroy- 
 ing the perfection of the Redeemer's obedience, teaching doc- 
 trine as dishonourable to it, as ever any Arian or Socinian 
 taught concerning his divinity. But all this is ignorant rant, 
 or deceitful grimace. The non-performance of occafional mo- 
 ral duties, when there is no call in providence, can never ren- 
 der any righteoufnefs whatever imperfect. Nothing can ren- 
 der a righteoufnefs imperfect, hut either the committing of 
 what the law forbids, or omitting to perform what it requires. 
 But the non-performance of occafional duties, when there is 
 no call in providence, cannot be the firft, it is not a commit- 
 ting of any thing ; neither can it be an omitting of what the 
 law requires, for the law does not require occafional duties, 
 without a call in providence. This is plain to fihooLboy. 
 
 He mentions the Weftminfter divines alFerting, that Cbrifl 
 fulfilled the law perfedlly. I maintain the fame thing, Sir; nor 
 C3n you furnifii your reader with any thing but exclamation, 
 and groundlefs charges as a proof of the contrary. Your quo- 
 tation from the ConMion might be to your purpofe, could 
 you inform us, where our Weftminfter divines maintain, that 
 it is necciTary to petforn.' occafional du;ies without a call in 
 providence, in order to fulfil the hw perfectly : Or, in other 
 words, that it is necefiary to fet afide the law as our rule, in 
 order to fulfil it perfectly. Unfortunately for you, the 
 
 T 2 
 

 ( I4» ) 
 
 "Weftminfter divines have fleeted clear of fuch crude abfur- 
 dities. 
 
 The reader will perhaps think it odd, that Mr. Hutchifon 
 fhould maintain the very fame doctrine, for which he charges 
 me with blafphemy and impiety. In p. 78. he allows, that 
 there are moral duties of the firit table, not merely occa/ional, 
 fuch as,, to repent of our own fins, which the Saviour did not, 
 nor could not perform : Duties of the fecond, which it is im- 
 pious to mention concerning him, and was irapoffible for him 1 
 to perform them. But ilill the reader mult take Mr. Hutchi- 
 fon's word for it, that he would not maintain fuck doctrine 
 for the whole -world. If I am chargeable with deftroying the 
 perfection of the Redeemer's righteoufnefs, Mr. Hutchifon 
 goes hand in hand with me ; when he charges me with blaf- 
 phemy, he charges himfelf, as he maintains the very fame 
 doctrine. 
 
 If I overturn the whole plan of redemption by Chriit, at 
 one ftroke, as you aiTert, becaufe I maintain that there were 
 moral duties which the Redeemer had no call to perform j I 
 afk you, Sir, what did the Saviour himfelf do, when he ex- 
 prefly refufed to perform a moral duty, when urged to it ? I 
 mean the duty of the civil magiftrate ; * Man, who made me a 
 « judge?' Will you maintain, that the Saviour, at one ftroke, 
 overturned the whole plan of redemption by himfelf? It is the 
 obvious confequence of your aflertion ; but it is fo dreadfully 
 mocking, I refrain from urging it. — From what I have now 
 meationed, the reader may underfland that Mr. Hutchifon al- 
 lows, that there are moral duties which the Saviour did not, 
 could not, irnpoffible for him to perform ; but I am chargeable 
 with grievous error, blafphemy, impiety, becaufe I maintain 
 the fame doctrine. 
 
 As our author makes fuch a noife about maiming and de- 
 flroying the perfection of the Redeemer's righteoufnefs, it may 
 not be improper to confider fhortly, what is requifite to con- 
 (titute a perfect righteoufnefs; and the reader's attention is re- 
 queued. In order to conftitute a perfect righteoufnefs, it 11 
 by no means requtfite that a man mould perform occafional 
 duties without a call in providence, or that he fhould perform 
 all the duties which are binding on thefe who occupy a different 
 
, ( 149 ) 
 
 ftation, or move in a fphere in which providence has not placed 
 him. In proof of this 1 obferve, 
 
 i . According W the tenor o^ the covenant of works, the firft 
 Ac 1 rr, 3 c ibr U ral he<*d of his natural offspring, was to obey 
 aw in perftttion. But this by no me. ns included trnt he 
 Was to perfoim occafional duties without 1 call; for the law, 
 ieithei as the law of nature, a covenant of works, or rule of 
 life, requires occafional duties without a call in providence. 
 Kor did it include, that he was to perform every pirticular 
 duty, wrVch might be incumbent on every individual of his po- 
 {rerity, in all the various fbtions, connexions, and office-capa- 
 cities, in which providence might fee meet to place them. He 
 ws* not bound to perform the duties of a man or maid fervant; 
 nor the duties of a child to the natural parent, as he had none ; 
 ' the duties of a foklier to his general, as war was inconfiftent 
 with a Hate of perfection ; nor the duties of an inferior of any 
 kind, as he was placed at the head of his natural offspring. But 
 in order to render his obedience perfec\ it was neceiTary, that 
 his holy foul mould chearfully approve of every duty required 
 by the holy law ; — that he mould perform, in perfefthn, every 
 duty, which the law requires of every individual of the children 
 1 of men, without exception ; — that he mould perform all thefe 
 duties in perfection, which the law required of him, in that 
 ftafiou in which providence had placed him. This would have 
 rendered his obedience per f eft, without the performance of 
 occafional duties, when there was no call in providence; or 
 duties which the law did not require of him in that capacity in 
 which he acled. Agreeable to this, I obferve, 
 
 2. According to the tenor of the covenant of grace, the 
 Redeemer, as the ipiritual head of his offspring, bthoved to per- 
 form that very obedience in the performance of which the firft 
 Adam mifcarried ; to obey the law-precept in perfection, as 
 well as endure the penalty. But in order to render his obe- 
 dience to the precept every way perfect, it was by no means 
 requifite, that he fhould perform occafional duties without a 
 call in providence ; it is vain to alledge it, for in fuch a cafe 
 the law does not require them. My opponent allows, that re- 
 penting of our own fin, a moral duty of the firff table, the 
 Saviour did not, could not perform. I have mentioned public, 
 
( 150 ) 
 
 Or national farting, an occafional duty of the firfl table, but n 
 account of the Saviour performing it. The confequence is or. 
 vious. It can be no impeachment of the perfection • of the Re 
 deemer's righteoufnefs, or argument againft the morality of a: 
 occafional duty, that we have no account of the Redeemer per 
 forming it. Nor was it requifite that he ftiould perform everj 
 particular duty incumbent on every individual of his fpiritua 
 offspring, in all the various ftations and connections, in which 
 providence might fee meet to place them. Agreeable to this 
 we find him exprefly refufing to difcharge a moral duty wher 
 urged thereto: Luke xii. ' Man, who made me a judge 
 He did not act in the capacity of a civil Judge, but of 2 public 
 Teacher; and therefore he declines the fir ft, but immediately 
 addreiTes himfelf to the laft. It is probable, covetoumefs was 
 at the bottom of the requeft ; and therefore while he declined 
 the office-work of the judge, as a public teacher, he gave a point- 
 ed exhortation againft worldly mindednefs ; as the reader may 
 fee by confulting the paflage. — It requires no common degree 
 of effrontery, after this, to maintain that nothing can be a 
 moral duty, if the Saviour did not perform it, when he ex- 
 prefly declined the difcharge of a moral duty when urged to it. 
 But in order to render the Redeemer's obedience unto the 
 precept perfect, it was requifite, that his holy human nature 
 /hould approve in the utmoft perfection of every duty required 
 by the holy law ; — that he fhould perform, in all the perfection 
 of the exceeding broad commandment, every duty which the 
 holy law requires of every individual of the children of men, 
 without exception j — that he fhould difcharge, in perfection, 
 every duty which the law required of him in that capacity in 
 which he acted, as the federal head of his fpiritual offspring. 
 All this he performed in the utmoft perfection, which consti- 
 tuted his righteoufnefs every way perfect, fuited unto the co- 
 ntends of the holy law, without the performance of occafional 
 duties, when there was no call in providence, or duties which 
 bad no connection with that capacity in which he acted ; for 
 thefe the law requires not, in uieh circum fiances. I obferve, 
 3. Agreeable to all this, it is the duty of Ghriftians, in the 
 flrength of promifed grace, to approve chearfully of every du(y 
 requiied by the holy law; — confcientioufly to perform every 
 
( Ht ) 
 
 uty, which the law requires of every individual of the fons of 
 
 .'. nen ; as alfo, every duty incumbent on them, in the various 
 
 rations, connections, and capacities in which providence has 
 . >laced them. Were all this done in perfection, which is in- 
 ompetent ro this imperfect ftate, it would conftitute perfect 
 \. Obedience to the law as a rule of life, without the performance 
 .,.'. )f occafional duties when there is no call in providence, or of 
 hefe duties which have no connection with that fituation in 
 ( vhich providence has placed them. — From all this it rs abun- 
 lantly evident, that the performance of occafional duties, wkh- 
 )ut a call in providence, or of thefe duties which have no con- 
 ■ lexion with that capacity in which the perfon acts, is no part 
 Df the perfection of any rigbteoufnefs whatever. In fuch cafes, 
 ' he law does not require them ; they can be no branch of per- 
 . Vet obedience thereto, and only vain babling to talk of their 
 nairoing, or rendering any righteoufnefs whatever imperfect. 
 On this particular, my friend fatisfles himfelf with aflTertions 
 " and exclamations ; as argument entirely fails him, he does not 
 b much as attempt it. « For my parr, fays he, I would not 
 * * maintain this doctrine for the whole world.* He exprefly 
 , grants that there are duties of both tables, which the Saviour 
 did not, could not, perform ; but the reader mull credit him 
 that he would not for a world maintain this. « God forbid, 
 ', ' fays he, it fhould be true, or gain credit among the children 
 ' of men.' He grants it is true, but God forbid, fays he, it 
 ' (hould be true. Now, when Mr. Hutchifon talks at this rate, 
 ' while h: exprefly grants that the doclrine I maintain is true, 
 he is certainly either jtjtingt or by folemn exclamations endea- 
 vouring to impofe upon the unwary reader. Your fcemingly 
 devout and weighty aiTeverations, Sir, are nothing lefs than a 
 vile profanation of the holy name of God, as you mud .either 
 be in jeft, or attempting to impofe. Did your Brethren act a 
 friendly part to you, they would certainly exercife the nect ffory 
 difcipline of the houfe of God, for a direct public violation of the 
 third commandment. Can any man refrain from being grieved, 
 to fee a profeifed minifler of Chrift, profaning the holy name 
 of God ; either in the way of jefting, or which is more likely, 
 by feeminglyyo/ew/j, but crafty grimace, endeavouring to de- 
 ceive the limple, as he iinds that argument has utterly forfaken 
 
( is* > 
 
 htm ? You grant it is true, yet God forbid, fay you, it mould 
 be true. How (hocking ! — It is now high time to confider 
 what error he has vented in fupporting this particular charge. 
 
 i. He maintains, that there may be imperfection of righte- 
 oufnefs, confiding neither in omiffion nor commijjion ; for the 
 non-performance of occafional duties, without a call in provi- 
 dence, is neither of thefe. 
 
 2. That with, or without a call, the Redeemer behoved tp 
 perform occafional duties ; or do that which the law did not: 
 require of him, in order to obey the law in perfection. 
 
 3. That it overturns the whole plan of redemption at onp 
 ftroke, to maintain, that there was a fingle moral duty which 
 the Saviour did not perform ; but he grants that there were 
 moral duties of both tables, w^ich the Redeemer did not, cculi 
 not perform ; and is evidently chargeable with the very thing 
 he finds fault with in me. 
 
 4. What is flill more (hocking, it will deny for no man, 
 that the Saviour himfelf exprelly refufed to perform a moral 
 duty when urged to it. According to my friend's argument, 't 
 this was to overturn the whole plan of redemption at one!: 
 ftroke. I chufe not to exprefs the obvious and unavoidable ! t 
 conclufion more plainly. Such are the errors and abfurdities, |c 
 into which men are plunged by a blind and obftinate oppoiltion jo 
 to the truth. — I have only one advice to offer you, Sir, and (i 
 zmferious, whatever you may think of it. You have three 
 or four Seceding clergymen in your neighbourhood, who un- 
 derhand much more diftinctly than either you or I, what h 
 requifite to conftitute perfection of righteoufnefs. "Would you 
 defire one or other of them, for fome time, to fpend a day 
 with you weekly, or monthly, in order to give you a juft and 
 proper view of what is requifite to conftitute a perfect righte- 
 oufnefs, I am perfuaded they are more generous, whatever ill- 
 ufage fome of them have received ; and are more concerned 
 for propogating the truth, than to refufe. It would be an ef- 
 fential fervice to yourfelf, and to your congregation. It is a 
 difgrace to the orthodox, to fee one who profefles to be of 
 their number, exprefs fo much ignorance, of fuch a capital 
 branch of their fcheme, as the perfection of the furety righte- 
 oufnefs of -the divine Redeemer. 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 In p. 98. I am loaded with a fifth charge of grievous 
 error, on account of my aliening, that to perform occafional 
 duties, without a call in providence, is a work of fupererogation. 
 I know no reafon for Hating this as a diftinct error from the 
 former, except to complete his bewitching decade. I reply. 
 To perform occafional duties, without a call in providence, is 
 to do more than the law requires in fuch circumftances. This 
 frill appears to me exceedingly like fupererogation. If my 
 friend has deviled a more polite faftiionable expreflion, I have 
 1 no objection, but wifh to fee the fentiment anfwered by him, 
 or any for him. To inftruct this charge, he adduces only » 
 : few of his former unfupported aflertions, which I have already 
 fully anfwered in their place, to which I refer the reader. He 
 : afks, Had the Saviour no call to covenanting, who came to. 
 ifulfil the law compleatly. I reply : To perform occasional 
 {duties, without a call, is no branch of complete obedience to 
 the law, but the very reverfe. It is plainly to fet afide the 
 law as our rule, for it does not require occafional duties in. 
 fuch circumftances. He came, fays he, to pay his people's, 
 .debt of obedience and punifhment. I anfwer : Occafional 
 iduties without a call, are a branch of no man's debt of any 
 ikind, for the law does not require them in fuch a cafe. He 
 1 came, adds he, to furnim his people with a bright and perfect 
 example of all moral duty. I Aill reply : To perform occa* 
 fioual duties without a call, is no branch of a perfect example, 
 but the very reverfe. The law does not require them in fuch 
 a cafe ; and either the law muft be imperfect, or the example 
 imperfect, feeing they correfpond not : my friend may chufe 
 which he pleafes. He further infinuates, that if covenanting 
 is a moral duty, it is a branch of the worfhip due to God by 
 the law. I reply : True it is fo, if there is a call in provi- 
 dence. But if there is no call, Sir, the law does not require 
 occafional duties, and to perform them, is to do more than the 
 law requires, in fuch circumftances : you may call it what 
 you pleafe. If occafional duties without a call, are a branch 
 of worfhip due by the law, as your argument imports; the 
 obvious confequence is, that to do what the law requires not, is 
 a branch of worfhip due by the law, for it does not require 
 
 U 
 
( 154 ) 
 
 occafional duties in fucn a cafe. He much qiaeftions, if doctrine 
 more abfurd and impious, was ever taught by the woman that 
 fits upon the fcarlet-coloured bea(t. As you are fo often at 
 Rome, Sir, with a load of detefted Seceders on your back, as 
 a prefent to his holinefs, it would perhaps be arrogant to fup- 
 pofe, that any Proteftant in Europe, is equally acquainted 
 with the doctrines of the venerable /trumpet. But you need 
 not go far, to find doctrine rather as abfurd and impious, viz. 
 that difregarding the law, is a branch of the worfhip due to 
 God by the law. On this, and the former particular, we have 
 little elfe, except impious, abfurd, blafphemcus, ihtfcarlct co- 
 loured beaft. My friend has always a group of fuch arguments' 
 at hand, equally applicable to every topic. A kail-wife could 
 have furnifhed you, Sir, with an hundred more of the fame 
 kind, as fenfible, and exprefled with equal fluency. — On this 
 particular, my opponent is chargeable with the following 
 errors. 
 
 i He is again chargeable with maintaining, that there can 
 be no complete obedience to the law, without doing that which 
 the law does not require, viz. performing occafional duties, 
 without a call in providence. 
 
 2. That our debt of obedience could not be anfwered, un- 
 lefs occafional duties were performed, without a call, which is 
 a branch of no man's debt or duty in fuch a cafe. 
 
 3. That Chrift could not leave his people a perfect pattern, 
 unlefs he furnifhed them with an example, of fetting afide the 
 law as their rule, and performing occafional duties, when the' 
 Jaw does not require them. I am charged, 
 
 Sixthly. With a roedly of confufion, and grofs error, the native 
 confequence ; founded on thefe words, Moral duties are bind* 
 i&g * n a H* which is not the cafe with occafional duties. -—I had 
 mentioned the distinction between moral and pofitive, ftatei 
 and occafional duties ; with other particulars concerning them, 
 nlmoft to a nuifance, and in the very page from which he quotes. 
 No man of common fenfe could expect, that every fentence 
 was to be larded with all thefe diftinctions. In the words quot- 
 ed by him, I allude unto the diflinction between stated and 
 occasional moral duties. I allow, that there are ftated mo- 
 ral duties which are binding on all perjbns, or every individual: 
 
( 155 ) • 
 
 but maintain, that there are occafional moral duties, which art 
 individual is not bound to perform without others in connec- 
 tion with him. 
 
 Mr. Hutchifon had aiTerted, that moral duties which are 
 public, or even national are binding on all perfons as well as 
 nations. His quotation is a part of my reply. I allow that 
 there are moral duties binding on every individual, and who 
 denies it ? But I maintain, that there are occafional moral duties 
 which are public y or national t (the very duties of which he 
 /peaks) which an individual is not bound to perform, if no man 
 elfe will join with him. I mentioned the national duty of de- 
 fending ourfelves from the inroads of an invading foe ; an in- 
 dividual is not bound to go forth alone and refift them, neither 
 (cripture nor common fenfe require it. Mr. Hutchifon men- 
 tions this in the preceding part of his pamphlet, and grants it 
 is true. The medly of confufion, is a fact which he cannot 
 deny. Had he quoted the next branch of the fentence, the 
 reader would have feen the meaning at once. * Our author 
 * may prove, that all thefe duties which are properly national, 
 1 are to be performed by an individual, when neglected by the 
 1 body of the nation.' To mention this, would have frullrat- 
 cd his criminating defign. His quotation is only one branch 
 of a fentence, and I have no objection to quoting a Ilngle 
 branch of a fentence, when the fenfe is evident ; but to do 
 this in order to conceal the fenfe, is exceedingly culpable. 
 
 It is the whole foundation of this charge ; I have not an- 
 nexed every diftincYion concerning duties, to every branch of 
 every fentence, he therefore exclaims, a medly of confufion ! 
 Had he put the following queftion to me, it would have ex- 
 prciTed the fubftance of his charge in the mod obvious manner. 
 "Why did you not lard not only every page, not only every 
 featence, but every branch of a fen:ence, with all the circurrw 
 locutions, divifions, and diftincYions, which you might well 
 know, were indilpenfibly requifite, when your rear was to be 
 aflaulted by fuch an able, learned, and judicious animadverter? 
 The abfurdity of fuch a method, is obvious to every one. The 
 confequences he mentions, have no title to reply. I know of 
 nothing extant comparable to them, except his learned dedue* 
 
 U 2 
 
( m > 
 
 tions annexed to his immortal paraphrafe on <Jie xivth of the 
 Romans. He alledges, 
 
 i . That I allow, that every moral duty is binding on the 
 Heathen. — I allow, that there are moral duties, (not every 
 moral duty) binding on all men, whether Heathen or Chrifttan. 
 I refufe, at the fame time, that an individual is bound to per- 
 form occafional duties, which are public or national, without 
 others in connection, which he hath afTerted, without proof. ' 
 2. That I refufe, that public falling and thankfgiving, are 
 binding on all men : Becaufe I maintain, that there are occa- 
 fional public v or national dinks, which are not binding on in- 
 dividuals without others in connection. I allow, that an in- 
 dividual may faft perfijially for public fins; and ought to do 
 fo, if others will not join with him : But I ftill maintain, that 
 an individual is not bound, nor can he fall publicly, or in a 
 national capacity, if not another fingle individual will join with 
 bim. Mr. Hutchifon may go to church, without elder, reader, 
 fextou, or audience, and bewail the public or national fins as 
 much as he will ; but without others to join with him, it is 
 only perfonal, whether performed in the clofet, the kirk, or 
 the mountain top. He aflerts, 
 
 3. That I deny that covenanting is a moral duty ; becaufe 
 I maintain there are occafional public , or national duties, which 
 «m individual is not bound to perform fingly by himfelf ; and 
 Mr. Hutchifon grants it is true. I ftill maintain, that an indi- 
 vidual may covenant perfonally, but he is not bound, nor can 
 he covenant publicly, or nationally, without a flngte individual 
 in connection. — This, Sir, is an a,ge teeming with llrange 
 difcoverie?, you have now heard it again afTerted, that an in- 
 dividual is not bound to faft nationally, without fo much at 
 another individual in connection. You may difprove this if 
 you can, as I apprehend you are the only man in the world, 
 poiTeiTed of the penetration to difcover the inconfiftency be- 
 tween this, and national fafting being binding on all men. On 
 this particular, he is chargeable with maintaining, 
 
 I. That if occafional public, or national duties are not 
 binding in every circumftance, they are binding in no circura- 
 {tence whatever \ becaufe I maiquin, that they are not binding 
 
( 157 ) 
 
 on an individual by himfelf, they are not, fays he, binding 
 
 at all. 
 
 2. He maintains, that a fingle individual is bound to per- 
 form occafional public, or national duties fingly by himfelf. 
 That he is bound to go forth alone, and defend the nation 
 from an invading foe. Query ? Is he not bound to tempt 
 providence ? — My afTerting, that an individual is not bound to 
 perform national duties, by himfelf alone, is the fum of his 
 medly of confufion. — As you conclude this particular with a 
 triple wonder, you cannot be difpleafed, Sir, though I fhould 
 defire the reader to annex one of them to ignorance, a fecond 
 to difingenuiry, and a third to love of quibbling ! ! ! 
 
 I am charged with a feventh grievous error, on account 
 of my afTerting, concerning the covenant with the Gibeonites, 
 // is true, it was a pofitive command to Ifrael to deflroy the 
 Amorites ; but the obligation of the eath, or covenant, being 
 moral, the pofitive muft yield to the moral obligation. Perhaps 
 it may not be difagreeable to the reader, to (how, as an evi- 
 dence of Mr. Hutchifon's fortitude ; that it is not merely an 
 illiterate Seceder whom he oppofes, in refufing the obligation 
 of the Gibeonites covenant. The Gibeonites, by the light of 
 nature, were in no hefitation concerning Jofhua's being bound 
 to defend them. Jofhua and the princes never queftioned the 
 obligation of their oath. The pious bifhop Hall obferves, al- 
 though Saul had flam in one day fourfcore and five priefta of the 
 Lord, who wore a linen ephod, we have no account of the blood 
 of his own priefts being enquired after ; but the blood of the 
 Amorir.es, becaufe of the oath of God. Nor have I feen any di- 
 vine whatever, confider it as a doubtful matter: what wonJerful 
 difcoveries are now made in our enlightened age ! Befides, 
 what ought to be of great weight with Mr. Hutchifon and me, 
 ourWeltminfter divines maintain, ConfefTiom chnp. xix. feci. 4! 
 that an oath is binding ro Heretics or Infidels j and Jofhua ix. 
 compared with 2 Sam. xxi. is one half of the proof adduced, 
 as the reader will \te by conlulting the fcriptures annexed. 
 Some little deference is certainly due unto our Confeflion, by 
 thefe who have publicly declared their folemn approbation of 
 it. My frjend ft and s forth like a modern Athanafius ; the a- 
 iialogy is honourable, although I maintain nothing but what 
 
( 158 ) J 
 
 bur Confefiion fupports. But above all, Jehovah himfelf en- 
 courages Jofhua and the Ifraelites in fulfilling their oath. 
 
 The reader will obferve, that the whole of this charge is 
 founded on my aiTerting, that a pojitivc yielded to the moral 
 obligation of an oath. Whatever my private fentiments are, 
 concerning the manner of fixing the obligation of an oath or 
 covenant, I have aflerted no more than this, that the moral 
 law of God obliges men to keep their oaths : my opponent ac* 
 knowledges it, and charges me with evading. No confequence 
 therefore can be deduced, from any thing I have aflerted, which 
 will not equally apply to a pojitivc yielding to a moral obligati- 
 on ; for this is the undeniable import of the heretical fentence. 
 The Ifraelites, on one hand, had a pofitive precept to deftroy 
 the Amorites ; on the other hand, the moral law of God, o- 
 bliging them to keep their oaths and covenants. The plain 
 import of the dreadful error then, is no more than this, a po- 
 fitive precept, which refpecled only a few idolaters in Canaan, 
 yielded to the moral obligation binding men to keep their vows 
 and oaths, which extends to every corner of the world, and to 
 deny it, in great meafure everfive of the very being of fociety y 
 juft as the pofitive precept, On it thou /bait not do any work, 
 yields to the moral obligation to perform works of neceffity 
 and mercy. If it is alledged, that they finned in making this 
 covenant ; I anfwer, It does not follow, that on this account 
 its obligation was difannulled. Chriitians finned in marrying 
 Heathens in the apoftle's days ; he exhorts them againfl it, but 
 did not apprehend that this difannulled the marriage covenant, 
 or that they might depart from them at pleafure. 
 
 It is true, as our author obferves, that they were drawn 
 into this covenant by guile ; fo might a Chriftian be drawn in. 
 to a marriage with a Heathen by guile : but the one couid not 
 difannul the obligation of an oath more than the other. Jo- 
 fhua and the princes finned in neglecting to afk counfel of God, 
 and taking no time to deliberate till they had fatisfying evidences 
 whether tru Gibeonites were from a far country or not. But 
 their fin could not difannul the obligation of their oath, any 
 more than the fin of Chriitians could difannul the marriage 
 vow. If it is alledged, that a moral and pofitive precept can- 
 
( '59 ) 
 
 not interfere in reality, the contrary is evident every Sabbath, 
 when works of mercy are requifite. 
 
 I (hall now proceed to detect his fophiflry, in his unnatural 
 unconnected confequences. In order to this, I defire the rea- 
 der to obferve only two particulars. 
 
 1. He fets out with averting, that I fet the deeds of men 
 in oppofition unto, and make them annihilate the authority of 
 Cod. Not one word of this is fact. I only maintain, that a 
 pofitive precept yielded unto the moral obligation of the law, 
 which binds men to keep thefe oaths and covenants which are 
 agreeable to, and founded upon the moral law. 
 
 2. Becaufe I allow that our oaths and covenants are obliga- 
 tory, or that the moral law obliges us to fulfil thefe covenants, 
 the matter of which is agreeable unto, and founded upon the 
 moral law ; he draws the unnatural confequence, that we are 
 likewife bound to fulfil thefe which are directly contrary to the 
 moral law. If I allow, that the moral law obliges me to keep 
 a covenant agreeable to the law, his confequence is, that it 
 mud likewife oblige me to keep a covenant directly contrary 
 to the law, than which there cannot be more palpable deceit. 
 Thefe are the foundaion of all his (hocking confequences. 
 
 I maintain, that a pofitive precept, in a particular inftance, 
 yielded unto the obligation of the moral law ; his abfurd confe- 
 quence is, that I make the deeds of men to annihilate the au- 
 thority of God. My doctrine, fays he, fet« afide every pofi- 
 tive ordinance under the gofpel. You mud firfi prove, Sir, 
 that gofpel ordinances interfere with the obligation of the moral 
 law. For I have only maintained, that when a pofitive precept 
 interferes with moral obligation, that the pofitive may, and in 
 many cafes ought, to yield to the moral obligation. Can you 
 prove the contrary ? If you cannot, your confequence is a 
 fiction. — My doctrine, fays he, will fet afide the whole of di- 
 vine revelation, becaufe it is pofitive. You rouft firft prove, 
 that the divine revelation is not only pofitive, but interferes 
 with the obligation of the moral law, which I hope you will 
 have the prudtnee to decline. Unlefs this is the cafe, I have 
 given no countenance to Dcifls, as you alledge. But it is clear 
 as brond day, it will deny for no man, that you have peform- 
 ed one half of the work of the ghoftly fraternity, as you fign> 
 
( !*> ) 
 
 ficantly ftile them. You maintain, that every thing pofitive 
 under the Old-Teftament, is abrogated under the New. You 
 likewife maintain, that the whole of divine revelation is pofitive* 
 The confequence is plain, as a fun-beam, that all the revelation 
 enjoyed under the Old Teftament being pofitive, is abrogated 
 under the New. You (hike off one of the church's breads 
 with a fingle ftroke, in a manner the Deifts could never have 
 thought of: they may find eafy work with the other. If a 
 fingle Relief clergyman can abrogate one half of the fcripture :| g 
 at once, who can reafonably blame the Conclave for twifting ;| jj 
 fcripture as they pleafe. 
 
 It is now time to confider my opponent's errors, in fup* \[ 
 porting this particular charge. L 
 
 i. He maintains, that if an oath bind us; in other words, [to 
 if the law of God oblige us to keep an oath, the matter of which | to 
 is agreeable to the law ; it muft alfo bind us to keep one, the 
 matter of which is directly contrary to the law. That if an oath 
 to keep the word of God bind us, an oath to rejecl the whole 
 word of God muft bind us alfo. This is error grofs enough. 
 
 2. That if a pofitive precept may yield to moral obligation, 
 
 all the pofitive ordinances under the gofpel are fet afide .If 
 
 this is true, gofpel ordinances are, beyond all peradventure, 
 fuperfeded. Every Sabbath, a pofitive precept, On it thou /halt 
 not do any work, yields to moral obVgation, as often as works 
 of mercy are neceflary. 
 
 3. That all the fcriptures of the Old Teftament, being pofi- 
 tive, are now abrogated under the New : And Chriftians, ac- 
 cording to our author's doctrine, have no concern with the fcrip- 
 tures of the Old Tefiament, as a divine revelation ; for, in this 
 view, he maintains they are abrogated. Might he not expect, 
 a congratulatory epiftle from the Popifli and Infidel ,tribes ? 
 
 4. That all the Old-Teftament predictions and promifes, can 
 be no fource of comfort to Chriftians, they are no revelatioivof 
 mercy to them ; for, as a divine revelation, they are now abro- 
 gated. 
 
 My opponent can be fatisfied with nothing lefs than plainefi 
 blafphemy, as his eighth charge of error, becaufe I allert, that 
 the tinner's convictions before converfion, like his prayers and 
 plowing, *re fiuful in the fight of God ; and reprobated his 
 
( i6i ) 
 
 i • faving con virions before regeneration. He in form; me, that 
 convictions are not the finner's works, ' but the work of the 
 * Spirit of God, operating as a fpirit of bondage, carrying home 
 ' the law upon the finner's conference. ' I reply ; Why then 
 : does he ftile them the finner's convictions ? ' Thofe, fays he, 
 I * whofe convictions are faving.' I muft inform him, in my 
 i turn, that the operations of the Spirit of Co J are not the fin- 
 I ner y s convictions. The finner's convictions are his own inward 
 : difireffing apprehenfions of the wrath and curfe of God, due 
 unto his fin ; in virtue of the law being fet home on his con- 
 fcience by the Spirit of God, as a fpirit of bondage. It is the 
 r work of the Spirit to awaken the fecure finner ; but the finner's 
 : convictions are his alarming apprehenfions of the curfe, in vir- 
 i tue of the Spirit's work. To affirm, that the Spirit's opdrati* 
 I ens are the finner's convictions, is a down-right folecifm in ian- 
 f g ua g e » ana * abfurdity in the extreme. I can freely fubmit if 
 I to the reader, if it is common fenfe to affirm, that the Spirit's- 
 J operations are the finner's convictions ; and if repeating is not 
 I refuting. And that thefe ahrming apprehenfions are finfuT, 
 I does not proceed from the Spirit's operations, which are holy r 
 f but from the finner's abufe of them by unbelief: Nor am I 
 t alone in afierting, that thefe convictions before regeneration 
 I are finful. Nothing can be more pertinent to the point in 
 l difpute, than the words of Martin Luther, that unJauntei 
 ( champion of reformation *, * The fears by which finners arc 
 I * terrified, either internally by God, or externally by preachers, 
 I * are fins, till they are overcome by faith.' According to ouc 
 I author's reasoning, if the finner abufe the Spirit's common o. 
 j perations by unbelief, the Spirit of God muft be the author of 
 » fin. It is the native confequence of his doctrine, that the holy 
 law of God muft undoubtedly be the author of fin. The a- 
 pofile fpeaks of motions of fn by the la\v } Rom. vii. 5. Com- 
 mentators inform us, that the apoltle means, that thefe motions 
 of fin are irritated, provoked, and increafed by the law's pro- 
 hibition. But, fays the apoftle, ver. 7. « What (hall we then 
 l ' fay ? is the law fin ?' Yes, y«s, fays Mr. Hutchifon ; you muft 
 maintain, that the law is the author of fin ; for the finner a- 
 
 • Iliftory of the Council of Treat, p. 109. 
 X 
 
( vt* ) 
 
 bufes its threatenings and prohibitions by unbelief, as he deos 
 the Spirit's common operations. Excellent doctrine ! But fays 
 the a pottle, Gs d forbid. 
 
 I may now afk the reader, if he knows where to fix the 
 p]aineft blafphemy on any thing. I have afTerted. When my 
 opponent fees meet to vindicate the holy law from being the 
 author of fin, it will render an anfwer to his charge of making 
 the Spirit the author of it, confiderably eafy. Our author's 
 doctrine plainly imports, that there is a fpecific difference be- 
 tween the convictions of the. non-elect, and thofe of the elect 
 before converfion : The firft have no faving convictions, the 
 laft have convictions prior to regeneration, which are faving, 
 and iflue in converfion fometime or other before their death. 
 When he makes proof of this fpecific difference, and that it is 
 not the Spirit uniting and working faith which conftitutes the 
 faving change, I (hall give a further reply to his charge of 
 making the Spirit the author of fin. 
 
 Proceed we now to confider the errors which are natively 
 ded ucible, from what he has advanced, in fupport of this 
 charge. 
 
 i . He maintains, that the Spirit's operations, are the fin- 
 Der's convictions ; whereas his convictions are his own alarnv- 
 ing apprehenfions of the curfe. 
 
 2. That there is fomething which is faving in the nature of 
 it, wrought in the finner, before the Spirit's unition and 
 faith. 
 
 3. That the law of God is the author of fin, for finners 
 abufe its threatenings and prohibitions, by unbelief, as they 
 do the Spirit's common operations. 
 
 His ninth charge of error, is founded on thefe words, 
 Faith and repentance are certainly duties required; but if 
 tver we expeel to exercife them, in a gofpel manner, we muft 
 view them as hleffings freely promifed. As this is aimoft the 
 only particular, in which he attacks me on the peculiar doc- 
 trines of the gofpel, the reader may expect a fpecimen of ray 
 opponent's accurate and extenfive views of gofpel grace. 
 
 His firfl remark is my uncouth phrafeology, exercifing the 
 duties of faith and repentance. But whether are thefe words 
 yours, Sir, or mine ? I fpeak of exercifing faith and repent- 
 
( 1*3 ) 
 
 ■nee; duties is a fupplement of your own. Befidcs, you will 
 probably allow, that the duties of faith and repentance are to 
 be performed ; will you inform us, how we may perform with- 
 out exercifing, or exercife without performing. 
 
 2. I deliver pretty extraordinary docVine, We muft view 
 the duties of faith and repentance, as bleffings freely promifed. 
 '* This, fays he, I utterly deny.' He might juftly have added, 
 and proclaim my own ignorance of the extent of the promifes 
 and grace of the gofpel. I did not alTert formerly, that we 
 are to view the duties of faith and repentance as prormfed blef- 
 fings ; but I now pofitively aiTert it ; and my friend may be 
 very certain, that Senders are not accuftomed to confider this 
 as very extraordinary doctrine. The promifes of the 
 gofpel contain not only the grace, but the duty alfo. I a Ik, 
 Ms it duty, to -walk in God's ftatutes, to keep his judgments, to 
 walk up And down in his name ? The reader may ccnfulr, 
 £zek. xxxvi. 26. < A new heart alfo will I give you,' 6c. 
 including every grace; but it follows, ver. 27. 'I will put 
 I my Spirit within you, and caufe you to walk in my ftatutes, 
 ' and ye /hall keep my judgments, and do them ;' including 
 •very duty. Here then, we have not only grace, but every 
 luty of the Chriftian life alfo, made over in a free and uncon- 
 ditional promife. Zech. x. 12. 'I will ftrengthen them in 
 the Lord/ including all needful grace; but it follows, 
 \ They fhall walk up and down in his name, faith the Lord;' 
 t fummary of every duty. — It were eafy to multiply quotations, 
 i ttt I fee no occafion for it, although my friend alledge, that 
 : hefe promifes, like the reft of the Old Tf (lament, are now 
 I brogated ; fince the apoftle aliens, not only, that it is God 
 vho works in his people to will f including every grace; but 
 Ifo to do, including every duty. A gracious God has mani- 
 efted his nnbeginning and felf-moved love, in fecuring, by his 
 aithful promife, not only all needful grace to his people, but 
 kewife the fuitable exercife of it, in the confeientioos diicrmge 
 •f every commanded duty. The promife cannot contain the 
 xercife of grace, without containing duty alfo ; for the ex- 
 rcife of grace conferred, U our unqutftion^b'e duty. Will 
 ay opponent alledge, that it is not his duty to exerrile grace 
 
 x 2 
 
( 164 ) 
 
 conferred ; or that grace is fecured by the promlfe, but the 
 exercife of it left to himfelf ? 
 
 Thefe are fentiments, which Mr. Hurchifon utterly denies; 
 and, according to his do&rine, the promife contains only the I 
 grace, or the fpiritual ability, as he afterward ftiles ic. It is 
 the fam of his gofpel on this particular, Give me the grace, 
 or the fpiritual ability ; fet me where Adam was, and I will 
 manage my (lock to better purpofe : I have no occafion for a i 
 promife, with my duty in its bofom, to fecure the performance : 
 of it. He confidcrs all that doclrine as extraordinary, which 
 does not correfpond with the prodigal fon's requeft, < Give roe 
 
 * my portion of goods ;' I will manage it at pieafure. — If this 
 is either the purity of gofpd do&rine, or the extent of the 
 gofpel promife, I never underllood it. In vain will he attempt 
 to dhTmguifh between duty, and the performance of it; and 
 that though the promife contain the performance^ the duty is 
 contained only in the law precept. If the promife contain 
 the performance of duty, it contains fomerhing more than the 
 fpiritual ability to which he confines it. Befides, the gofpel 
 promife contains the very thing it/elf, required by the law- 
 precept. The Saviour informs us, Mat. xxii. 37. That it is the 
 fum of firft-uble duty, to ' love the Lord our God with all our 
 
 * heart and foul* Agreeable to this, the promife contains the 
 very thing it/elf] required by the law ; Deut. xxx. 6. ' And 
 
 * the Xord thy God will circumcife thine heart, — to love the. 
 
 * Lord thy God, with all thine hearty and with all thy fouL* 
 It is the law demand, ' Make you a new heart, and a new 
 i fpirit: Ezek, xviii. 31. But the . gofpel promife contains 
 the"" very thing kfelf, required by the precept ; Ezek. xxxvi. 26. 
 < A new heart alio will I give you ; and a new fpirit will I 
 ' put within you.'— It is idle to multiply quotations, where 
 the fciipture is io exprefs. It is no fmall fource of comfort 
 to the godly, that the law-precept . \d the gofpel-promife 
 cxaclly correfpond. 
 
 3 4 To view the duties of faith and repentance, fays he, 
 .« as bleiTings freely promifed, is abfurd and unfcriptural.' The 
 reader may judge by the preceding quotations, if it is unferip* 
 tural ; ajid if it is not, it cannot be abfurd. I add, a de* 
 jecled foul may fometimes increafe the inward difquietude, by 
 
 
C i<*5 > 
 
 reafoning thus : « I fee all needful grace in the promife • but, 
 « alas ! I have a deceitful unbeliev'iBg heart ; I will mifimprove 
 * the grace, and neglect the duty.' — I know fome would tell 
 him, htie is the free promife, containing not only the grace , 
 but the duty alio in the bofom of it ; « I will caufe you to walk 
 « in my ftatutes, ye fha/l keep my judgments, and do them ;• 
 and defiie him to turn the eye or faith to fuch faithful promifes. 
 No* fays my friend, at your peril look at fuch promifes, it is 
 abiurd and unfcriptur.il to slledge, that your duty is contained 
 in a promife. The reader may judge which of thefe is mod 
 unlcriptural. 
 
 4. He alledges, « I cannot well di(tingui(h between the 
 « graces of the Spirit, and duties of the law.' I apprehend, 
 that neither, of us have much realon to boaft of what we can 
 dilfinguifh ; rher* arc miniflers of different denominations, 
 who can eailly fee both his weaknefs and mine. He mufr in- 
 form me, hpweyer, ■ Thai faith and repentance, as graces and 
 ' duties, are quite diflinfl from one another.' 'This I utterly 
 deny ; he is grofly miifaken. I maintain, that faith and re- 
 pentance, as graces and duties, are only confidcred in a difiincl 
 view, but are themfelves identically the fame. "Will he affirm, 
 tbar it is one faith which is required by the law, and a quite 
 dijiincl one which is promiled in the gofpel ? Is it one faith 
 which is contained in the command, < Look unto me and be 
 '. ye laved ;' and a quite dijiincl one contained in the promife, 
 ' They (hall look unto me whom they have pierced V Is it 
 one rtpeotance contained in the command, < Turn ye, turn 
 * ye ; why will ye die V and a quite diflinli one contained in 
 the promife, * They fhall mourn.' The gofpel-promife and 
 law-precept can never correfpond, if the faith and repentance 
 required by the one, and made over in the other, are quite 
 distinct from one another. They are identically the fame, 
 only confidered in a diftinct point of view : It would feem 
 my friend cannot well diftinguiih between things which are 
 diftinc"t in thtmf elves > and a dijlvitt view of them. As well 
 may he affirm, that Mr. Hutchifon is a quite diflinSi man when 
 he looks at the law, and when he looks at the gofpel : Or, 
 which is perhaps more applicable, that the fame round fum is 
 ' quite diiYmcl, required of him, or promifed to him ; the fum 
 
( t66 ) 
 
 is identically the fame, whether promifed, or required. So 
 is it with faith and repentance ; for, as face anfwers to face in 
 the glafs, fo do the promifes of the gofpel, anfwer to the pre- 
 cepts of the law as the Chriftian's rule. I may inform him, 
 that it is the uniform doctrine ef Calvinifts, that the law-pre- 
 cept and gofpel-promife, exactly correfpond. 
 
 5. ' As duties, fays he, they point out what the law of 
 c God requires ; and as graces, they are that fpiritual ability 
 * which the foul receives from above, to believe and repent, 
 4 as the law commands.* "Without animadverting on his un- 
 couth phrafeology, that faith and repentance, as graces in the 
 promife, are only ability to believe and repent ; 1 obferve, our 
 author is generally a ftrenuous advocate for the perfection of 
 the law, the reader will therefore be furprifed to find him at- 
 tacking the facred perfection of the divine law. He maintains, 
 that faith and repentance are quite diftintt, as contained in 
 the tew -precepty and the gofptLpromife. He Hkewife maintains, 
 that as fpiritual ability for duty, they are contained in the 
 promife; and therefore, according to his doctrine, as the fpi- 
 ritual ability for duty, they cannot be contained in the precept 
 of the law. The obvious and undeniable confequence is, that 
 the law does not require the fpiritual ability for duty, it is 
 contained only in the promife. But man was furnifhed with 
 ability in his federal Head, he bereaved himfelf of it, by his 
 apofbcy in the firft Adam, and the law requires him to reftore 
 what he has impioufly taken away, viz. his fpiritual ability 
 with which he was furnifhed in his federal Head. If faith and 
 repentance are the fpiritual ability for duty, in this very view 
 they are required by the holy law. When the law requires 
 the finner to make to himfelf a new heart, can you diftinguifh 
 between this, Sir, and requiring fpiritual ability for duty ? 
 Spiiitual ability for duty, confining in the being and ftrength 
 of evciy grace, is one principal branch of the moral image of 
 God, drawn upon the foul ; do you apprehend, that there is 
 any branch of the moral image of God, which is not required 
 by the exceeding bro^d commandment ? If this is not to in- 
 fringe the facred perfection of the divine law, I know not 
 what c?n be fo. If he alledge, that he does not mean to re- 
 fute, that the law requires the fpiritual ability , why then does 
 
( 1*7 ) 
 
 he vent his disdainful information, by diftincYions where he 
 can make no difference ? The fpiritual ability is required by 
 the law, as well as promifed in the gofpel. 
 
 I cannot refrain, Sir, from tendering my former advice a- 
 neyw, that you would take fome time to converfe with your 
 neighbouring Seceding minifters, concerning the perfection of 
 the law, and peculiar doctrines of the gofpel ; for fuch a group 
 of abfurdity, treading upon the heels of abfurdity, in half a page, 
 b rarely to be met with. 
 
 I (hall now mention the errors my friend has broached on 
 this particular. 
 
 i. To walk in God's ftatutes, is not our duty, for it is 
 contained in the promife. There cannot be a more native 
 confequence of his docVine. 
 
 2. Sinners need only grace, or ability for duty, but hare 
 •o need of a promife with duty in its bofom, to fecure the 
 performance of duty. 
 
 3. Sinners muft not look to a promife with duty included 
 in it ; it is abfurd. 
 
 4. It is one faith and repentance contained in the promife, 
 and a ojjitb distinct one required by the precept ; and the 
 gofpel-promife does not correfpond with the law-precept. It 
 has hitherto been matter of comfort to the godly, that the very 
 thing required of them by the law, is freely promifed to them 
 in the gofpel. To maintain, that it is one faith and repent- 
 once, required by the law ; and a quite diftincl faith and re. 
 pentance promifed by the gofpel ; is an indication of mournful 
 ignorance of both law and gofpel. Who would not commife- 
 rate the poor people, who are ufually entertained with fuch 
 doctrines ? 
 
 5. The law does not require fpiritual ability, or to reftore 
 \*hat we have impioufly taken away ; and principal branches of 
 God's moral image, which are not required by the exceeding 
 broad commandment. 
 
 His iall charge of error, is founded on thefe words, Par* 
 don is granted, and all the graces of the Spirit implanted, at 
 the Jame injlant ; and perhaps no great propriety in faying, fir ft 
 this and then that. « This, fays he, is true, neither in divinity 
 \ oor philofophy.' The reader will obferve, that I foeak of 
 
( .« ) 
 
 pardon being granted ; my opponent of pardon obtains d. Till 
 he prove an aft j or the exercife of faith before God's grant of 
 pardon, I have no concern with him. Had he fatisfied him- 
 felf with an order of nature, with refpeft to faith and pardon, 
 our difpute was ended. But, l an aft of faith, therefore, at 
 1 leaft mud intervene, fays he, between the implantation of 
 * faith, and the obtaining of pardon, but every aft is in time.* 
 Now, if his intervening period is fixed, between the implanta- 
 tion, and the firft a6l of faith ; I reply, that no time can in- 
 tervene, between the implantation and firft aft of faith. The 
 reader, I fuppofe, will allow, that there is no impropriety in 
 aflerting, that a man opens his eyes in the clear day, and be- 
 holds the light at the very fame time. In the very opening of. 
 them, he beholds the light, an order of nature, but not of 
 time. In Jike manner, the implantation of faith, is juft an 
 opening of the tinner's eyes, in a fpiritual fenfe , the fcripture 
 expreflj ftiles it fo, ' To open their eyes* &c. ; and in the very 
 opening of them, at the very fame inf$ant, the fintier beholds 
 the Sun of righteoufnefs. No intervening time, therefore, 
 between the implantation, and firft aft of faith. 
 . His pbilofophical period of time ; muft therefore be allotted 
 to the firfi aft of faith itfelf, before the receiving or obtaining 
 of pardon. But neither will this fupport his quibble at the 
 commonly received doftrine of Galvinifts. I demand a proof, 
 that a certain portion of time is employed in the firft aft of 
 faith, before receiving or obtaining of pardon ; or, that the 
 iinner afts faith for a time, before the receiving of pardon. 
 The firft aft of faith is a receiving of pardon ; it is neither 
 before, nor after, but in the firft aft of faith, that the finner 
 firft receives pardon ; an order of nature, but not of time. 
 He allures us, that the firft aft of faith is in time, but forgets 
 to prove, that the granting aritl obtaining of pardon cannot be 
 at the fame time ; you muft take his adertion for proof. Can 
 you inform us, how long a time the finner afts faith before the 
 receiving of pardon ? .In other words, how long he receives 
 pardon before he receive it : for the very fir*} aft of faith is a 
 receiving of pardon. — It requires a much furer head than 
 yours, Sir, for enabling a man to apply philofophical quibbles 
 to gofpe( doctrines, without landing himfelf in fuch grofs ab- 
 
C i*9 ) 
 
 furdities. You may amufe yourfelf with defcrifemg the inter- 
 vening time, between pulling off your hat and your head being 
 uncovered ; the one the caufe, the other the inflantaneout 
 effeft : an order of nature, but not of time. It is true, that 
 every aft is in time ; but you fhoulJ have proved much beiter 
 than you have done, that no other blefTing can be conferred, 
 at ihtfame time with the firft acl of faith, before you Hated 
 the oppolite doctrine among your decalogue of errors. 
 
 Here I may obferve, as his philofophical portion of time feems 
 to be afligned to the mil act of faith, before the believer receive 
 or obtain pardon ; he is chargeable with maintaining, that a 
 finner may enjoy the Spirit's unit ion, the being, and acting of 
 faith, and of confequence, real holinefs ; but rajy, in this fitu- 
 ation, for a time, be expofed to endlefs wo, becaufe he has not 
 received or obtained pardon. I all', how fhould the finner be 
 difpofed of, if death mould arreft him, in your philopipbicMl 
 period? In virtue of the Spirit's unition, faith, and holinefs, 
 he enjoys heaven in the beginning of it, for grace is glory irr 
 the bud ; but during the philofophocal period, he has not re- 
 ceived pardon, and is liable to everlalling wo. Would a pur- 
 gatory be necefTary, Sir ? — I aflferted nothing on this article, 
 but the common doctrine of Calvinifts, and you make a pretty 
 figure at overturning it. 
 
 I have now canvaffed his charge of grofs error, and the 
 whole amount of it is as follows. I. I have atferted, that the 
 ceremonial and moral law were diftinct. 2. That the Heathens 
 are not bound to believe on a Saviour, of whom they never heard, 
 and who was never in their offer. 3. That divine teaching 
 is not a mere figurative expreflion, and that the Moft High 
 may prefcribe ways for his people, without being himfelf pof- 
 feffed of a bodily form. 4. That there are fome moral duties 
 which the Saviour did not perform, becaufe he had no call to 
 do fo ; a doclrine which Mr. Hutchifon grants is true, but he 
 would not maintain it for the whole world. 5. That to per- 
 form occafional duties, without a call in providence, is to-do 
 more than the law requires in fuch circumftances. 6. That 
 there are occafional national duties, which an individual is noC 
 bound to perform, without others in connexion. 7. That a 
 pofitive precept may fometimes yield to moral obligation. 8. 
 
 Y 
 
( 170 ) 
 
 That the Spirit's operations are not the finner's convictions, 
 but his convictions are his own alarming apprehenfions of the 
 curfe. 9 That the promife contains both grace and duty; 
 ' a new heart will I give you, — and caufe you to keep my 
 < ftatutes/ 10. When every grace is implanted in the foul, 
 the finner is not a Jingle moment, after this, liable to the curfe ; 
 for pardon is granted at the fame inftant. — Air this Mr. Hut- 
 chifon reprobates as error, and grofs error : and I leave the" 
 reader to judge, if his own hands have not made the fnares 
 
 wherewith he is caught In oppofing thefe unqueftionabie 
 
 truths, he has vented triple the number of errors. 
 
 He informs his reader, that thefe errors are not taught by 1 
 the Relief clergy. I reply; Thefe are not the only gofpel 
 truths, it would feem, which are not taught by the Relief 
 clergy ; for, according to Mr. Hutchifon's defence of their 
 doctrine, if they do not exprefly contradict the counfel of God, 
 they may conceal as much of it as they will. • Nor by thofe, 
 fays he, of the Efhblifhed Church. I hope there are yet fome 
 in the Eftabliflied Church, who will maintain every one of thefe 
 truths, which he has, in vain, attempted to impugn. He has 
 mifcarried egregioufly in herefy-hunting ; but has fucceeded to 
 admiration in her efy -vending. 
 
 SECT. IX. 
 
 The Relief Scheme dive/ted of thefe things which are none if 
 its Peculiarities. 
 
 T Shall now conclude this performance, by giving the Reader 
 
 a view of the Relief fcheme, diverted of thefe things which 
 are none of its peculiarities, but common to the Relief and 
 ther denominations. My opponent in his firft attack upon the 
 Seceffion, fet out with an attempt to flrip the Seceflion fcheme 
 of thofe things which, he aflerted, were none of its peculiari- 
 ties. It cannot therefore be deemed either rude or unmanner- 
 ly, although I mould conclude, by making a trial how the Re- 
 lief will bear the fame treatment: And I fhall ftudy brevity. 
 
 i . The doctrines of free grace, reigning through a Redeem- 
 er's blood and righteoufnefs, are none of the peculiarities of 
 
 f 
 
( I7i ) 
 
 the Relief fcheme. There are fevera! other bodies of difkn- 
 ters, who are full as much diftinguimed in this refpect. Our 
 author, in his firit publication, claims only the capital and 
 fundamental truths. 
 
 2. To maintain, that the Prefbyterian church government is 
 the form of government which God has appointed for the new- 
 teftament church, is no peculiarity of the Relief fcheme. The 
 reft of the Prefbyterian difTenters maintain, that it is the only 
 form appointed for the new-tefhment church. 
 
 3. To approve of the Weftminfter ConfeiTion of faith as a- 
 greeable unto, and founded upon the word of God ; ?nd as 
 the confeffion of our faith, is none of the Relief peculiarities. 
 This is done in the Eftabliffiment, and by Prefbyterian dilfen- 
 ters in general. Mr. Hutchifon informs his reader, that all 
 the Relief mlnifters folemnly acknowledge the fame as th? Con- 
 feffion of their faith. So far it is good. But although I am 
 fatisfled, that our Confeffion does not contain bloody princi- 
 ples, if the reader compare Mr. Hutchifon's doctrine of toler- 
 ation, with chap, xxiii. of the Confeffion, i That it is the ma- 
 1 giflrates duty to take order, — that blafphemies and herefies be 
 ' fupprefFed,' 1 apprehend he will foon be convinced, that it is 
 difficult to underfhnd how Mr. Hutchifon could approve of it 
 without a neceffjry falvo, viz. errors excepted. Mr. Hutchi- 
 fon's doctrine of an active and unbounded toleration, extending 
 to every thing in religion which depraved nature can devife, is 
 a direct charging of our Confeffion with bloody Popifh prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 4. To maintain, the Chriftian people's right to chufe their 
 own paflors, is no branch of the Relief peculiar fcheme. Thia 
 is maintained in principle by a number of minifters in the efta- 
 blilhed church ; and both in principle and practice by all the 
 different denominations of Prefbyterian diffenters. It is true, 
 our author charges Seceders with infringing the people's liberty 
 of choice, becaufe they do not allow them to chufe their mi- 
 niflers out of a different denomination, and of different prin- 
 ciples from themfelves. This defer vts no reply. I never in 
 
 ,my life, Sir, heard of any reftriction to their own denomina- 
 tion, at the moderation of a call among Seceders, though I 
 .muft be Jo free as to allure you, that if there was any occaiion 
 
 Y 2 
 
I 
 
 ( 172 ) 
 
 for it, it would certainly be done. But our people have more 
 common fcnie, than to connect rhemfelves with us, and de- 
 clare their approbation of our principles, while thty wifh to 
 choofe their miniiteis from another denomination, and of dif- 
 ferent principles. According to my opponent's dodhine, the 
 peoples freedom of choice is reftricted, unlefs they are allowed 
 to choofe an Independent Englifh Curate, or Roman Catholic. 
 But if the people Bbay lawfully choofe a minifler of fuch prin- 
 ciples ; the Relief minifters may lawfully ordain him, if no- 
 thing impede but his particular principles, which were well 
 known before the choice, and accordingly our authoi's fcheme 
 is not Prtfbyterian : Nay, it is not Proteftant ; for if the 
 people may lawfully call a Papift ; minifters may lawfully or- 
 dain him j but if the people are renrid"red from the Tirft, fays 
 my friend, their freedom of choice is infringed. 
 
 If our author maintain, that the people have a liberty to 
 choofe a miniiler of any principles whatever ; but the Relief 
 prefbytery will ordain, only as they fee caufe ; I afk, what 
 then does the people's liberty of choice avail them ? their courts 
 have a negative over them ; they have only got a number of 
 ecclefis'fiic pations. in place of a civil one. It is true, thai 
 circumftsnefs may occur, between the call and ofdination, 
 •which were unknown, both to minifters and people, before the 
 moderation, on account of which, the courts may juftiy re- 
 fnfe to ordain, or the people drop their call. But if nothing 
 of this fort intervene, if it is lawful for the people to choofe, 
 it muff be lawful for minifters to ordain. I know no objection 
 to this, unlefs it be urged, that the people may lawfully call 
 an ordained minifler, and the court? may lawfully refufe to 
 tranfport him. The reply i& eaiy : The courts refufe not, 
 becaufe transportation is unlawful in the general, but becaufe 
 it is not expedient, or for general edification in the particular 
 circumflantiated cafe. They maintain, that tranfportation is 
 lawful in the general, but that they have a power to judge of 
 expediency, and edification in a particular cafe. If tranfporta- 
 tion were unlawful in the general, it were likewife unlawful 
 for the people to call an ordained minifler. The obvious 
 confequerce with refpec"r to our author's fcheme is this, that 
 U is lawful in- the general, for the Relief people to calf, and 
 
( 173 ) 
 
 the Relief minifters to ordain a PaoW, only their courts have 
 power to judne of expediency in a particular circumfhmiated 
 c-.fe. How to diveft his fcheme of Popery, is not ealy to con. 
 ce'ive.— I (h .11 p'ls : t, however, as I expect it will be canvafled 
 to purport by another hand. And whether the Relief people 
 have enjoyed the freedom of choice in a variety of inftances, 
 feems as vet to he problematical. 
 
 5 To mingle Bjxterian, Neonomian, and Arminian tenets, 
 with ihe doctrines of the gofpel ; — although it has been done 
 by minilkis in the Relief connection, both from pulpit and 
 pr t fs ; — is no branch of their peculiar fcheme ; for this is done 
 by numbers in the prelent age. 
 
 6. To maintain an unbounded active toleration, that it is 
 the duty of the civil magtltrate pofitively to enact and declare 
 unto his fubjefts, that they may maintain, Socinian, Arian, 
 Dtiftical, idolatrous, blafphemous principles ; that they may 
 worfmp (locks and {tones, departed faints and angels ; yea, and 
 devils, if they will, and have as much of his countenance and 
 encouragement, as in maintaining the doctrines of falvation, 
 and worshipping the God of heaven ; That the revenues of 
 the kingdom mall be as chcarfully expended by him in rearing 
 temp'es for the Queen of heaven, as places of wor(hip for the 
 living God ; That he is determined to fpare ail whom the Al- 
 mighty (pares, and because ht has fpared robbers and murder- 
 ers, he is determined to fpare them alio : It is not peculiar to 
 the Relief, nor even to JVJr. Hutchifon to maintain fuch prin- 
 ciples, it is done by many in this golden iEra of Ghriltian 
 liberty. 
 
 lc will perhaps now be enquired, is there any thing at all 
 which is peculiar to the Relief, by which they may be diOin- 
 gui.'hed from other denominations ? I reply: Trm I know 
 nothing peculiar to the Relief, but that which Mr. Hutchi on 
 reprobates, in the Chappel fcheme, r.s a direct breach of the 
 feco. d commandment : I mean, admitting to (ealing ordi- 
 nances, thofe who Hand connected with oihcr denominations, 
 and to whom they can exercife no difcipline, however much 
 their after-carriape fhoulj require it : Or, Relief connections 
 receiving fealing ordinances from miniftcrs of other denom'Ta* 
 tions, who cannot admiuifter difcipline to them, however much 
 
( 174 ) 
 
 they may afterward expofe themfelves thereto. This is the 
 very fum and efjince of any thing peculiar to the Relief, either 
 admitting others to whom they can adminifter no difcipline ; 
 or being admitted by others, who can adminifter no difcipline 
 to them. Our author, p. 209. of his Delineation, fpeaking 
 of the Qhappel of Eafe, ' This fcheme, fays he, prefents us 
 1 with a number of minifters, who have the power of doctrine 
 
 < in the church of Ghriit, bat not of difcipline.' And, in the 
 following page, he aflerts, in the mod pofitive manner, < That 
 
 < it is a direct breacn of the fecond command.' And in exprefs 
 terms aliens, « That it U not one whit better than Popery, for 
 * this reafon, that \t feparates parts of the New-Teflament mi- 
 
 < nijlry? Although our author's language is fevere, his reafon- 
 ing appears to me unanfwerable ; and therefore it narively fol- 
 lows, that as far as aey minifter, or body of minifters, feparate 
 parts of the Ncw-Teftament miniftry, fo far they are charge- 
 able, if not with Popery, with that which is not one whit 
 better, a direct breach of the fecond commandment. — Now, I 
 wi(h the reader to confider deliberately, if he can refufe, that 
 both adm\mdr\vg /ea ling ordinances ', and the difcipline of the 
 houfe of God, are each of them . parts of the New-Teftament 
 miniftry, and as clofely connecle- 's the doctrine and difcipline 
 are. 
 
 I have ftiown, in a former publication, that doclrine, 
 fea'ing ordinances, and difcipline, are all included in one fingle 
 injunction, * Feed the church of God.' Mr. Hutchifon him- 
 felf being judge then, to feparate between the adminiftration 
 of fealing ordinances and difcipline, thefe confefled parts of 
 the New-Teftament miniftry, is not one whit better than Po- 
 pery, a direct breach of the fecond commandment. — I likewife 
 defire the reader to confider deliberately, if he can point out 
 another particular, which \$ peculiar to the Relief, except ad- 
 mining, or being admitted where difcipline cannot be exercifed, 
 and thefe parts of the New-Teftament miniftry feparated. 
 
 The Ghapptl fcheme feparates thefe parts of the New-Tefta- 
 ment miniftry with every communicant ; the Relief fcheme as 
 effectually feparates them, as far as its peculiarity reaches, in 
 admitting, or being admitted, where no difcipline can be ad- 
 miniftered. When perfons of other denominations are ad- 
 
( 175 > 
 
 mitted by the Relief, they can adminifter no difcipline to them ? 
 and thefe parts of the New-Teftament miniftry are undeniably 
 feparated : In like manner, minifters of other denominations 
 can adminifter no difcipline to Relief connections, whom they 
 admit to fealing ordinances, and thefe parts of the New-Tefta- 
 ment miniftry evidently feparated — As far, therefore, as the 
 Relief peculiarity extends, so far thefe branches of the gofpel 
 miniftry are feparated ; and Mr. Hutchifon himfelf being judge, 
 no better than Popery, and a direct breach of the fecond com- 
 mandment. — I am neither confcious of humour, nor an in- 
 clination to rage or revile, but aflert, in the mod dilfpationate 
 manner, that after the cooleft deliberation, I can know nothing 
 the generation are wondering after, but a direct breach of the 
 moral law, Mr. Hutchifon being judge. 
 
 I fhali be very glad to fee my opponent point out any thing 
 elfe peculiar to his fcheme, except admitting, and being ad- 
 mitted where difcipline cannot take place : And to fee him e- 
 ▼ince, that this does not, as far as the Relief peculiarity extends, 
 as effectually feparate thefe things which God has joined, as 
 the Chappel fcheme does, and therefore a direct breach of the 
 fecond commandment. 
 
 Perhaps it may be objected, that the Relief minifters exercife 
 difcipline among their own connections, but the Chappel mini- 
 fters have no fuch power ; and therefore to reafon from the 
 one to the other, is net conclufive. I reply ; This ouly ag- 
 gravates their guilt, if they are vefted with a power to preferve 
 all the branches of the New-Teftament miniftry, in their fcrip-i 
 turc connection, but voluntarily feparate them. This is like- 
 wif. a fufficient reply to another objection, viz. That fepara^ 
 ing between the adminiftration of fealing ordinances and dif- 
 cipline, is not peculiar to the Relief; that in this, they are 
 even exceedeJ by the Chappel minifters. The reply is obvious : 
 The Chappel minifters, I apprehend, would willingly admini- 
 fter difcipline, when neceflTary, to thefe whom they admit to 
 fealing ordinances, but their fuperiors will not permit. But 
 the Relief miniHers voluitari/y, and without any valid reafra f 
 admit thefe to fealing ordinances, to whom, they wdl know, 
 they ^an adminifter no difcipline afterward, however neceiTary. 
 It may therefore be juftly Ailed their peculiarity, as of fret 
 
( >7<* ) 
 
 choke i they feparate thefe things which God has joined, and 
 glcry in it ! 
 
 It will perhaps be objected, that to refufe any of the godly, 
 of whatever denomination, admillion to fealing ordinances, is 
 directly contrary to that important article of the Chriftian faith, 
 the communion of faints. This is a very noify argument with 
 fome of our friends in the Relief; but it is only an ignorant 
 confounding of church-fellowfhip, and the communion of faints, 
 as Mr. Hutchifon docs, Animad. p. 94. It is obvious to every 
 one, that fitting at one communion table, is only circumftan- 
 tial, and can be no way eflTential to the communion of faints. 
 The communion of faints, in all the eflentials of it, is, and muft 
 in the very nature of things be, enjoyed by the church Catho- 
 lic ; although, inftead of fitting down at one communion table, 
 they are diflant from one another as the ends of the earth. 
 All the faints of the Moll: High have communion with one 
 another, in one God their Father, one Son their Saviour, one 
 holy Spirit their SancYifier and Comforter ; one faith, one 
 baptifm, one imputed righteoufnefs, one heavenly inheritance. 
 They have URewife communion in one another's prayers, and 
 good wimes, wiftiing well to all thefe who love our Lord X> 
 fus in fincerity ; and a3 far as they have opportunity, they 
 have rommunion alfo in doing well, or in mutual offices of 
 kindnefs, fympathifing with one another amidft every thing 
 which pafTes over them in this land of efirangement ; rejoicing 
 with thefe who rejoice, and weeping with thefe who weep. 
 
 Thefe, and the like particulars, include the very eflentials of 
 the communion of faints, and their not fitting down at one 
 communion table, cannot, in the leaft degree, impede the en- 
 joyment of it. Mifguided zeal, biggotry, and party fury, 
 among different denominations, may be very prejudicial unto 
 the fuitable improvement of the facred privilege ; but their not 
 fitting down at one communion table cannot interrupt it. — I 
 defire our author to prove, that fitting down together at a 
 communion table is, any how, edential to the communion of 
 faints, and that it does not properly belong to church-fellow- 
 fhip. When a mere circumfiantial at mod, is preferred to 
 preferving the ordinances of God entire, and not feparating 
 
( 177 ) 
 
 /hat God has joined ; this is not to improve, but to ahufe the 
 Dcomunion of faints. 
 
 I htartily with our Relief friends would confider thefe things 
 eliberately ; to embarque in a fcheme which has nothing pec- 
 uliar, except a feparating the ordinances of God, is at leaft 
 ery inconfiderate. I would • ftill expect, that they may ia 
 ime be convinced of the inconfiflency of ir ; as it is faid, that 
 hey have now given up with vtfible jaintjhip, as their compre- 
 enfive term of communion, on which our author expatiated 
 o much in a former publication. It is faid, they have now 
 udicially determined to admit none to fealing ordinances, who 
 outinue in connection with intruders. But however difficult 
 o account for, it will not deny, that there are fome, almoft 
 o every corner, whofe doctrinal fentiments, and tender con- 
 'erfation are fuch, that only the moft detefted biggotry could 
 xclude them from the lift of vifible faints ; but Hill they hang 
 >n in connection with thele, who received their charge, not only 
 vi»hout the call, but in direct opposition to the inclinations of 
 he people. We will no more be dunned with vifible faintjhip ; 
 ind it may be expected, that they will yet fee the inconfiflency 
 )f admitting thele to whom they cannot excrcife difcipline, be 
 t as necefTary as it will. "Whatever be the confequence in 
 this refpect, the Relief fcheme diverted of thefe things which 
 ire none of its peculiarities, is neither more nor lefs, than a 
 feparating between fealing ordinances, and the difcipline of the 
 houfe of God. "Whether the prevalence of this fcheme, its 
 being admired and applauded by the generation, is an evidence 
 of retoimation, or of confufion, and lofing fight entirely of 
 Prefbyterian principles, the reader muft judge for hirofelf. I 
 have let every one of Mr. Hutchifon's arguments againft cove- 
 nanting, in what appeared to me, their moft native and ob- 
 vious meaning, and expofed the weaknefs of them in fuch a 
 manner, as may be evident to perfons of the meaneft capacity. 
 It is true, that a number of my brethren could have anfwered 
 him, with lefs toil, and to much better purpofe ; but as he is no 
 formidable toe, ifjounds and /<•«/£ are diftingui(hed, I faw no 
 difficulty at all in aniwering. I have likewife expofed the fallacy 
 of his quibbling, in fupport of their doctrinal errors ; have fliown 
 that he is now well nigh being a ftauncb covenaoter, and re* 
 
 Z 
 
( 178 ) 
 
 pelled his charge of bloody prisciples ; fhown, that in charging 
 me with ten imaginary, he has vented triple the number of real 
 errors ; have exhibited the Relief fcheme diverted of its pecu- 
 liarities ; and the whole is fubmitted to the impartial reader. 
 
 I have now once and again anfwered, not only his arguments 
 few and feeble ; but his numerous aiTertions alfo, and have 
 followed him foot for foot through all his extraneous ftoriei, 
 and unconnected ramblings. Should he deign to anfwer me, 
 and a reply be thought necefTary, I (hall adopt a different plan, 
 caller for myfelf, and more agreeable to the reader. I mean 
 to felecl from his anfwer, only thefe things which have fome 
 appearance of argument, and to fubjoin a compendious view 
 of covenanting, with Mr. Hutchifon's arguments againft it, and 
 the anfwers, all in a few pages, and fo obvious, that perfons 
 of the weakeft capacities, may have a diftinct view of the 
 whole fubjecl. 
 
 He concludes, by wiihing me better qualifications for writ- 
 ing, and that all good may attend me. Charity obliges me to 
 believe him in earneft. I bid him adieu, at the time, wifbing 
 him every perfonal and family blelTing ; and fuccefs in every 
 undertaking, confident with the truths of the gofpel, and welfare 
 of the fouls of men : And if he again appear from the prefs, 
 that his uncommon talents for writing, in his own opinion at 
 leaft, may be employed in a better caufe. If foaring founds, 
 and creeping fenfe, crippled premifes, with (turdy extenfive 
 conclufions, conftltute a mafterly writer, no man can refufc, 
 that my friend has a double title. — If ever the reader meet 
 with me again from the prefs, I heartily wifli it may be on a 
 more agreeable fubjecT:, affording more opportunity for re- 
 commending, and enforcing the doctrines of free grace, as the 
 appointed mean for promoting vital practical godlinefs. If 
 thefe (heets are in any meafure ferviceable for eftablifning 
 truth, and promoting the interefts of religion, by preferring 
 fome from wandering from the good old paths, or embracing. 
 the humour of the day for their rule, inftead of the unerring 
 oracks, the author's end is fo far gained. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
A N 
 
 ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE BURGHER 
 
 RE-EXHIBITION 
 
 OP THE 
 
 T E S T I. M O N Y. 
 
 fc 
 

r 
 
 (KJ 
 
w w 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 zJ^^gm 
 
 
 ■