to pay a civil debt in any respect, as God requires, without holiness,as it is to go to the sacrament in any respect, as God requires without holiness. For, God requires, us to do both with a single eye, to his glory. Mr. T.'s mistake, therefore, appears to be this, that he makes a mere civil command of that command of God which requires us to pay our honest debts. But, we must remember that God, as well as Cæsar, requires us to pay our debts. The command, therefore, is a holy command: and a holy manner of paying debts belongs to the very substance of the duty enjoined: no debt is paid, in any respect in the sight of God without holiness.

In a word, to prevent all future mistakes respecting this matter, it is not Cæsar's command which we say a man does not in any respect obey, while he pays his civil debt with wicked views: for Cæsar is satisfied with the mere external payment, and has no respect to the temper of the agent. But it is God's command which we say a man does not obey in any respect who pays a civil debt without holiness. For, God requires the heart, and judges not ac-. cording to the appearance. And, if Mr. T. can be persuaded not to blend and confound, externals and internals, and mere civil actions and moral actions together, we shall meet with no difficulty. For, 1. It has been proved, and he has granted, that there is no obedience to God in mere external actions. And 2. It has been proved, that there is no obedience to God in the effective yolitions or motives

of the sinner, because they are like other exercises of his heart, which is totally depraved.

In his first publication, Mr. T. had tacked to my theory, this unnatural consequence, viz. "That a man ought to have preponderating evidence that he is in a regenerate state, in order to his warrantably doing any external action whatever. For he that doutbteh is damned if he eat."

This consequence I needlessly adopted; and to defend it, advanced a number of things which he has ingeniously invalidated. For his pertinent remarks in this particular instance, I give him honour, and hope never to withhold it in a similar instance.

But, with justice, I now deny the consequence. For the command of God, and not the evidence of regeneration, is the rule of duty. My theory is this, that no action is a duty in the sight of God, which action is destitute of love. For, love is the fulfilling of the law. And, does it hence follow that a man who is destitute of love, has no warrant to begin to love God, till he has evidence that he has loved him? It does not, any more than it follows that it was not Adam's duty to be perfect till after he was perfect, because his duty consisted in perfection; or, that it was not Noah's duty to make the ark, till he had made it, because it was his duty to make it. If my theory were this, that the evidence of obedience is the rule of obedience, the consequence would be inseparable and undeniable, that a man may never do any thing without

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 qualifica tion 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.