evidence of his previous obedience : and not only so, but that he who is destitute of love to God, has no liberty to begin to love him. But, this sentiment has no connexion with my doctrine. For, as just remarked, I plead, that love only is the fulfilling of the law, or that there is no duty in actions which are destitute of love. It is evident, therefore, that the command of God is a sufficient warrant for any man to begin to do his duty, who has always neglected it, and to do it perfectly. To illustrate the sentiment, if needful, we will take a case from scripture. "Men and brethren," said the distressed multitude," what shall we do?" Then said Peter unto them," Repent," &c. To repent, therefore, according to his direction, was their duty. And, thus in every instance the command of God authorizes a man to do what is required, whether he has evidence of having been the subject of obedience or not. Mr. T. has most impertinently, therefore applied this text: "he that doubteth is damned if he eat." For, the apostle means only, that a man condemns himself who does an action while he doubts whether it be commanded. If this were the meaning of the text, that a man condemns himself who begins to obey God, before he has evidence that he has obeyed him, it would have been pertinently quoted by our author; but, now it is not. For, it is one thing to doubt, whether God commands us to love him with all our hearts, and our neighbours as ourselves : and another to doubt, whether we have acted

accordingly. I will only add, that he who knows his Master's will, must do it immediately, whether he has evidence of having done it before or not. For the command of God is the rule of duty. And no man can be at a loss what he ought to do first, except the one who forgets the Bible, and is bewildered with Mr. T.'s theory. For Christ says," Cleanse first that which is within, and seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness."

The strange and unnatural branch, therefore, which Mr. T. has attempted to graft upon our olive, is the natural growth of his own wild tree. For, while he pleads for the morality of actions, abstractly from motives, and yet flatly denies that moral agents ever act as such without motive; while he pleads for the objective goodness of actions as in themselves; and yet calls actions indifferent which are destitute of good or bad design, what poor sinner can tell the matter of duty from the matter of sin? for, a theory which depends upon the sliding and obscure use of these numerous terms and phrases, the matter of an action, the manner of an action, the motive of an action, the end of an action, the principle of an action, the circumstance of an action, the substance of an action, the objective goodness of an action, the negative goodness of an action, and the moral goodness of actions abstractly from motives, must necessarily subject unlearned sinners, to several doubts and difficulties respecting the practice of the matter of duty. *

As Mr. T. has atempted to make his readers believe

SECTION VIII.

The Defence of Mr. T.'s Second, Third, and Fourth Arguments Examined.

"My second argument, he says, was drawn from the acknowledged encouragement which God has given sinners to attend the means of grace while unregenerate, as the only likely way to obtain regeneration and salvation. From whence I concluded, that such an attention must be a duty, since God never encourages men to sin.”

The specious influence of this argument, to prove that God requires actions of men which are destitute of holiness, depends upon the ambiguous use of the word encouragement. For, Mr. T. must know, that according to the inspired use of the word, divine encouragement is equivalent to a divine promise. Hence it is repeatedly said, "Charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for, he that I make " Full assurance of faith" a necessary qualification for sacramental communion, I take this opportunity to inform tender minds, that at his own expense he inserted the phrase "Full assurance." For, I never made use of the phrase full assurance in the connexion. Nor do I think that churches ought to make it the term of admission. The least preponderating evidence of gracious sincerity, authorizes a person, according to the rules of the gospel, to ask for admission to christian communion, and when the church have the least credible evidence, that he is really the subject of gracious sincerity, they are authorized to receive him as the friend of Christ. To hear proponents talk of their infallible knowledge and full assurance, is not grateful. For, bold confident professors have too often outlived their religion, and deeply wounded the cause of truth. The little trembling tree has generally taken the deepest root in the garden of the Lord, an d born the most and the best ripe fruit.

shall go over before this people." It was also upon the immoveable footing of the divine promise, that David encouraged himself in the Lord his God, and that Josiah encouraged the faithful service of the Levites in the house of the Lord.

Having, therefore, once more corrected the wrong and dangerous use of the word encouragement, we will carefully state his argument, and try the strength of his defence. Probability is the word which properly expresses the sentiment under consideration. For, he does not hold that salvation is promised to the faithfulness of the unrenewed. The argument then is this in all its strength: It is more probable that_sinners who perform the mere externals of religion will be saved, than those who do not; those, therefore, who perform them, do some part of their duty. I am cordially ready to grant as before, that it is much more probable that sinners will be saved who read the Bible, and steadily hear the gospel, than though they were wholly inattentive, and stupid. But, does it follow, that sinners do their duty merely because they are the subjects of that attention which increases the probability of their salvation? By no means. For, it is more probable that profane persons, who read the Bible and hear the gospel preached from Sabbath, to Sabbath, only to get an opportunity to ridicule the truth, will be saved, than though they did neither. How many instances have been recorded of the conviction and conversion of profane men, in consequence of going to the house of God, when

they went only to catch an opportunity to defame christianity? And, does it follow, that they did any part of their duty merely because they were more likely to be saved, than tho they had not given this attention? it does not, any more than it follows, that a wicked man does his duty, who cultivates his land to raise a crop only to feed his lusts; and yet cultivating his land is the only probable method to obtain a harvest. The reader is sensible that Mr. T.'s argument is founded wholly upon the doctrine of probability. Since, therefore, many actions which are confessedly wicked, are evidently connected with the probability of great good to the agents themselves, as well as to others, his argument fails. Probability will not support it any more than possibility or impossibility.

But, says Mr. T." Can any one in his senses believe, that God is constantly encouraging men to sin; and even binding them to it, by the ties of their own everlasting interest; that he is continually letting them know, that they must do that which is nothing but sin, or else their is no probability of their salvation!" To this pathetic petition Iwillingly reply: no person in his senses can believe it. For, God can no more encourage men to sin, than he can promise them a reward for sinning. But, what then? what has this to do with the argument fetched from probability? for, cannot God offer Christ to sinners and encourage them to receive him by the motive of everlasting life, without encour aging them to reject him by the motive of