of the fpirit" Here he comes over to my opinion, and in perfect contradiction to his premises and confequence too, owns, that gofpel truth and motives are utterly infufficient to prevail with corrupt men to believe favingly, till the energy of the spirit is exerted. Hence it follows on his principles, as well as on mine, that it is to no more purpose to urge gospel truths and motives.on unconverted men to perfwade them to be reconciled to God, than to reason with a madman to cure him of his madnefs."+"Thefe means have no more tendency to draw fuch hearts than" (to use his own elegant expreffion)" they have to draw a cart."‡ If" men neither will nor can be influenced to believe favingly by the most powerful gospel motives, without the powerful energy of the spirit, as he owns, then does it not follow, that "God mocks men when he uses arguments with them to turn and be reconciled, while he knows they neither will nor can do it, till he exerts his power? and are not his expreffions of compaffion and pity toward them, as deceitful as Judas's kiffes ?-And is not the gospel the vaineft, foolishest, absurdest thing in the world? What would you think of a king, who out of pity to the poor mad men in Bedlam, fhould fend his bifhops to perfwade them to lay afide their wrong imaginations, and become fober, fince, he knows they are fo crazed "that they neither " will nor can" obey till he exerts another kind of means even some immediate energy? What high thoughts would this give us of his Majefty's fkill in curing madness, and of his fincerity"? These and fuch like are the frightful confequences he draws from the doctrine of the abfolute physical § influences of the fpi

¶ D. p. 45, 46. + D. p. 39, 40. D. p. 23, 24, 27, 39, 40.

rit

+ D. p. 21.

I have frequently used the word phyfical as defcriptive of the nature of the power of the holy spirit in regeneration.

This

rit in regeneration, founded on total depravity and innate, natural enmity to God; but it is eafy for the reader to fee that they all follow with equal ftrength from his own conceffion, and fo he, as much as I, has robbed the gospel of all its moral power.

If Mr. H. fhould here object and fay, that though he agrees with me, that the means are and must be ineffectual, and that "men neither will nor can fo believe and realize gospel truth as to be renewed by

its

This Mr. H. feems to think is quite indefenfible; for in his letter to Mr. Hopkins p. 5, he fays "I obferve you ❝carefully avoid ufing the word phyfical in your writings "on this fubject."-But Mr. H. might have obferved that Mr. Hopkins is not afraid to use this word fince he quotes Van Maftrick with approbation, who ufes it boldly, and fuggefts that none but grofs Pelagians and Socinians oppose a phyfical operation of the fpirit on the will in regeneration, Animad. p. 10. This word is very frequently used in this fenfe by found calvinifts, and the Weftminfter affembly hold the thing, tho' they do not, that I remember, ufe the word; for they apply Eph. i. 19, 20. to regeneration, and fuppofe the fame power exerted in it, which raifed Chrift from the dead-which Mr. H. allows to be a phyfical power. See confef. of faith, chap. x. and larger catech. on effectual calling, and D. p. 45. For my part I freely own 1 can fee no reason to reject the word, if by it is understood the fame power by which Chrift was raised from the dead, or by which God commanded the light to shine out of darkness. This has been fo commonly, and fo anciently used by found calvinifts, that Mr. H. can't with any face call it new. The learned Charnock largely proves that regeneration is effected by a phyfical power, and is a phyfical change. Vol. 2. p. 220. * D. p. 22.

Regeneration is a new creation, not effected by objective light or truth, but by power; and in this fenfe it is true, that truth, however realized and believed, can't renew the heart, unless with Mr. Sandeman we believe that "the merciful truth is alfufficient to fave, v. 2, p. 19," without any other power but its own; for in order to believe

"its influence"-" without the powerful energy of "the fpirit," yet he widely differs from me as to the nature or kind of energy exerted by the fpirit; that I hold that the motives are made effectual by a preceeding phyfical energy new-creating the heart or renewing the will in order that the motives may have a proper influence", whereas he holds the energy to be moral, and only "perfwades men to be reconciled to God by the motives of the gofpel as an inftrument in his hand. + To this I answer,

1. It is true we differ about this; but then we agree that the motives have no power till the spirit exerts fome kind of energy, fo that their efficacy is only with, and never without it. Now fince we agree in this, our differing about the kind of this energy, will not help Mr. H. nor free his doctrine of these confequences, because neither the phyfical, nor the moral energy of the spirit is in the power of any man; and therefore, according to him "it is to no purpose to pray and befeech men to be reconciled to God," for this can have no effect till "the spirit exerts his energy." It matters not what kind of power is neceffary; for if all the efficacy of the motives depends on the fpirit's energy, whether phyfical or moral, then all his dreadful confequences follow; and he muft either affert with Mr. Sandeman that "the agency of the holy spirit is infeparable from a " fpeculative" knowledge of the truth;" i. e. that there is something inherent in the truth that regenerates; or which is nearly the fame thing, deny the neceffity of both the phyfical and moral energy of the fpirit in regenera

Р

tion;

believe gospel truth aright, men muft be already renewed: But the above phrafe, of Mr. H's naturally leads the reader to think, that if men had a "will or difpofition to realize and believe gospel truth"; yet they have not power, but men have fufficient power, if they had a will. D. p. 21, 26. + D. p. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27-45, 46. D. p. 21, 45.

tion; or clear his own doctrine of the above abfurdities, which he may find done to his hand perhaps above a thousand times over, by calviniftic divines in answer to Pelagians and Arminians, who have ever been loading the doctrines of total depravity, natural enmity to God, and the neceffity of the immediate phyfical energy of the spirit in regeneration, with the fame and many other hideous confequences. But

2. Mr. H. by moral power or energy of the spirit, must mean either (1.) his ufing arguments and motives drawn from the gospel, &c. in order to perfwade unrenewed men to believe and love God, without any phyfical energy on the mind or heart in order to prepare or difpofe it to be influenced by them: Or (2.) That he exerts a physical or natural power in order to prepare the heart to receive and be influenced by these motives. If he means the first, then no energy is exerted, nothing but skill is employed in using the beft arguments in the best manner, and fo all power, but that of "the merciful truth" is denied. If he means the fecond, then he is fully of my opinion, and contends only about words, while we mean the fame thing. It is however abundantly evident that fometimes he means the firft; * and yet in other places he evidently intends the laft, if his words convey his meaning; yea in almost the same breath he afferts both. He fays "The carnal temper must be morti"fied, and a better temper introduced into the heart. "The apostle does not fay this happy change of the "mind or heart can't be effected by the influence " and power of gofpel truth and love, but the contrary. Here he holds that moral fwafion does the work; but he immediately adds "God graciously "fubdues the enmity and reconciles the foul by let"ting in the light, and a sweet attractive sense of his holy truth and love."+ Here he afferts the last,

66

viz.

* D. p. 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 29, 41, 46, 59. † D. p. 47.

viz. that phyfical power is exerted; for if "God lets in the light," he does fomething before the light gets in; he don't only fhine, but he opens the windows to let in the light; and fo fhines into our hearts to give us the light of his glorious knowledge. Now I as readily own as he, that when this light is let in by God fo as to give" a sweet attractive fenfe of his holy truth and love," it is enough, it reconciles the foul to God, to whom it turns or converts with its warmeft affections; and I have no where faid any thing to the contrary, that I know of. Yet Mr. H. immediately adds, “The new divines indeed are so bold as to fay "all this is not fufficient to convert and reconcile one foul." But where have I or any one else said this? Mr. H. fhould have pointed to the place where this new divinity is to be found: I am fure it is not in my fermons, but the contrary doctrine. I call on Mr; H. to fhew where I or any one elfe fays this. Perhaps he will tell me, it is to be found in my fermons P. 52. Rem. II. I freely own to him, and the world that I used the word converted there very improperly for regenerated, and immediately explained it fo clearly, that Mr. H. easily took my true meaning to be that men are not regenerated by moral swasion,' || and this I hold ftill. But I no where fay, that "when God gives or lets into the foul a fweet attractive fenfe of his holy truth and love, it is not fufficient to convert or reconcile it to God," as he afferts I do. I fay that God regenerates the foul by his own immediate power, in which he gives this fweet fenfe, and this is always attended with reconciliation and active converfion to God. Mr. H. can with as good a grace, and ás much truth affert that I wrote his dialogue. He is therefore bound in juftice to retract this false affertion; and acknowledge the injury he has done to me and others thereby; though I hope it was done thro' ignorance.

+ 2 Cor. iv. 6.

+ D. p. 47.

|| See D. p. 25.