pel must, after all, be a new law, or a new rule of action. But what necessity for this? "If the pure and holy law of God requires every man cordially to receive and heartily to approve of the gospel;" (as Mr. B. in p. 49, says it does,) then what room is there for the above distinction? A cordial reception and hearty approbation of the gospel is the very essence of conformity to it.

3. "Natural holiness was liable to be lost; but spiritual holiness never was liable to, never was, never can be, lost." Answer: This proves nothing to the point, unless the reason why spiritual holiness cannot be lost is owing to its nature, or kind, and not to the promise and perpetual preservation of the Holy Spirit. A principle the same in nature, may be produced in one subject, and left to the conduct of that subject to preserve it in being; while, in another subject in different circumstances, its existence may be infallibly secured by the promise and power of God. It is generally supposed, that the elect angels were confirmed in their state of original purity. Supposing this to have been the case, that confirmation, though it rendered their holiness, like that in believers, inamissible, yet it did not, in the least, alter its nature. It had not been a confirmation, if it had. Nor is there any reason, that I know of, to conclude, that the holiness in the elect angels was of a different nature from that which originally existed in those who fell. I have no notion of any principle in my soul that is, in its own nature, necessarily immortal. My experience teaches me, that I should as soon cease to love Christ, and the gospel, and every thing of a spiritual nature, as Adam ceased to love God, were it not for the perpetual influence of his Holy Spirit.

That none of the above differences make any thing in proving the point, is equally evident from Mr. B.'s own principles, as from what has been now alleged. He supposes spiritual holiness, or the holiness which is in believers, to be a conformity to the law, though not to the law only. Very well; so far, then, as spiritual holiness is a conformity to the law, it is, and must be, the same, in nature, as what he calls natural holiness; and yet they differ in all the circumstances above-mentioned. That conformity to the law, of which believers are now the subjects, and which must have been incumbent upon them 2 F

VOL. I.

while unbelievers, is "derived from Christ as their head, and comes by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and not by natural generation;" neither "can it ever be lost," so as to become totally extinct. These are things, therefore, which do not affect the nature of holiness; and so are insufficient to support a distinction of it into two kinds, the one essentially different from the other.

Upon the whole, I think, Mr. B. in treating upon this subject, has proceeded in much the same manner as when discussing the definition of faith. In order to prove that holiness in the hearts of believers is something essentially different, or different in its nature, from what was possessed by man in innocence; he proves, or rather asserts, from Dr. Owen, that it "is an EFFECT OF ANOTHER CAUSE, and differs in the OBJECTS of its vital acts; there being new revelations now, which were not before." (pp. 76, 77.) All this is allowed and it proves what Dr. Owen meant it to prove; viz. that we are not, after the manner of the Socinians, to make Christianity a mere revival of the law of nature. It proves that there are "some differences," as he expresses it,* between the life of Adam and that of a believer; but it does not prove an essential difference in their principles; nor did the Doctor mean it, I should suppose, to prove any such thing.

SECTION IX.

THE CAPACITY OF MAN IN INNOCENCE TO BELIEVE, AND TO DO THINGS SPIRITUALLY GOOD, FARTHER CONSIDERED.

WE now proceed to the second question; viz. WHAT HAS

MR. B. DONE TO OVERTURN THE ARGUMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT, WHICH HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO ANSWER? Some things he has

* Owen on the Spirit, p. 241.

passed over he has said nothing, for instance, to what was advanced on the case of Cain and Abel; or on the difference between an essential and a circumstantial incapacity in our first parents to believe in Christ. I had attempted to prove, that the spirit and conduct of Adam, in innocence, were nothing more nor less than a perfect conformity to the holy law of God; that the same might be said of Jesus Christ, so far as he was our example; and, consequently, the same of Christians, so far as they are formed after that example. In proof of the last two positions, several passages of scripture were produced. On these Mr. B. has made some remarks.

Psalm xl. 8. I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart. What Mr. B. says (p. 79.) of the will of the Father extending to Christ's laying down his life as a sacrifice for sinners, I think is true; but nothing to the purpose. I was speaking of Jesus Christ, so far as he was our example; but what have his sufferings, " as a sacrifice for sinners," to do in this matter? Was he designed herein to be our example? Surely not. If the moral law be allowed to be "herein included," that is sufficient. And, if this were not allowed, since Mr. B. acknowledges, "that the Lord Jesus Christ, throughout his life, yielded obedience to the moral law," and has pointed out no other obedience, wherein he was our example, than this;* the point is given up, and all the questions in pages 78 and 81 are to no purpose.

Jer. xxxi. 33. I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, &c. Mr. B. thinks the term law, here, "includes the law of faith, or the gospel; and also what the apostle, in Rom. vii. 23. calls the law of the mind; antl especially as the apostle, when he quotes the passage in Heb. viii. 10. uses the plural word laws." (pp. 80, 81.) The plural word laws, in scripture, and in common speech, signifies no more than the different parts, or branches, of the same law; and is of the same import with the word commandments. I think, with Mr. B. that each of the above ideas are

* It is true, Christ was our example in his conforming to positive institutions; but this is included in obedience to the moral law, which requires a compliance with whatever God shall, at any time, think proper to enjoin; and will hardly be supposed to require a distinct principle for the performance of it.

included: not, however, as so many distinct laws put into the heart. For God to write his law in the heart, is only another mode of speaking for giving us a heart to love that law; and if the law requires a cordial reception, and hearty approbation of the gospel;" (as Mr. B. in page 49, owns it does,) then, in a fallen creature, to whom the gospel is preached, a heart to love that law must include a heart to embrace the gospel; and a heart to love the law and embrace the gospel, is the principle of holiness, called the law of the mind.*

An argument was drawn from the term renewed, as applied to our regeneration. On this Mr. B. remarks, as follows: "I think, at the resurrection, the same body that dies will be raised; but I think the state in which it will rise will be more than circumstantially, it will be essentially different from that in which it was laid in the grave; except corruption and incorruption, dishonour and glory, weakness and power, natural and spiritual, are essentially the same." (p. 83.) So far from this making for Mr. B. one need not desire a better argument against him. He thinks, he says, that the same body that dies will be raised; I think so too, or it would not have been called a resurrection: let him only acknowledge that the same

After Mr. B has acknowledged, that "the law of God requires a cordial reception of the gospel," it is somewhat surprising that he should reason, as follows:-"If the law commanded faith, in relation to Christ crucified, it must then acquaint us with Christ crucified. It would be an unreasonable law to enjoin an act about such an object, and never discover one syllable of that object to us." (p 92.) It certainly would be unreasonable to require faith without a revelation of the object; and, where that is not revealed, we do not suppose it incumbent. But, if the gospel reveal the object of faith, the moral law may require it to be embraced, Mr. B. himself being judge. If the law cannot reasonably rẹ. quire faith towards an object which itself doth not reveal; then, what will become of his natural and common faith in a crucified Christ, which he allows is required by the law? Does the law reveal Christ as the object of this kind of faith, any more than the other? Mr. B. cannot say it does. The above quotation, I suppose, is taken from Mr. Charnock. I have not the first edition of his works, and so cannot follow Mr. B. in his references; but, if Mr. Charnock's meaning were what the connexion of his words, as introduced by Mr. B. seems to represent, it is certainly contrary to the whole tenor of his writings; and I believe no such thought ever entered his heart, as to question whether faith in Christ were the duty of sinners,

principle that was lost is restored, or it would not have been represented as a renovation; and we are satisfied. Let him but

allow this, and he is welcome to dwell upon as many differences, as to causes and objects, as he can find. If this be but granted, all that he can say besides cannot prove an essential difference. It is very extraordinary for Mr. B. to suppose that it can. That which is essential to any thing, is that without which it would not be that thing. If corruption, dishonour, or weakness, belonged to the essence of the body, then it could not be the same body without them. These cause a difference as to the circumstances and condition of the body; they do not, however, so alter its essence, but that it is the same body through all its changes.

What is here advanced does not suppose that "corruption and incorruption, natural and spiritual, are essentially the same." Doubtless they are different and opposite qualities; but the question is, Do these qualities cause an essential difference in the bodies to which they pertain ? If any one were disposed to prove an essential difference between the principles of saints on earth and saints in heaven, he might easily accomplish his purpose, according to Mr. B.'s mode of reasoning. He might say, 'They are more than circumstantially, they are essentially different: the one are weak, the other strong; these are exercised in believing, those in seeing; these are attended with opposing carnality, those are free from all opposition. Now here is an essential difference; except weakness and strength, faith and sight, remaining impurity and perfect holiness, were essentially the same!'

If Mr. B. should reply, that he did not plead for an essential difference between the body when it dies and when it is raised, but between the state of the body at those different periods; I answer, Then what he has said is mere trifling, nothing at all to the purpose. His design was to illustrate an essential difference between the principles of man in innocence and those in believers, and not barely in the state and circumstances of those principles; otherwise there had been no dispute between us.

The only question, it was before observed, to which the whole ought to be reduced, was this, WHETHER SUPREME LOVE TO GOD WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LEAD A FALLEN CREA