fake of Chrift, and the honour of Chriflianity; whoever ye are, that fhall next enter the lifts against us, do not wiredraw the Controverfy by uncharitably attacking our perfons, and abfurdly judging our fpirits, inftead of weighing our arguments, and confidering the feriptures which we produce. Nor pafs over fifty folid reafons, and a hundred plain paffages, to cavil about non-effentials, and to lay the ftrefs of your an- . fwer upon miftakes which do not affect the ftrength of the cause, and which we are ready to correct, as. foon as they fhall be pointed out.

Keep close to the queftion: do not divert the reader's mind, by ftarting from the point in hand upon the most frivolous occafions; nor raise duft to obfcure what is to be cleared up. An example will illuftrate my meaning. Mr. Sellon, in vindicating the Church of England from the charge of Calvinifm, obferves, that her catechifm is quite anti-calviniftic, and that we ought to judge of her doctrine by her own catechifm, and not by Ponet's Calvinian catechifm, which poor young King Edward was prevailed upon to recommend fome time after the eftablishment of our church. Mr. Toplady in his Hiftoric Proof, inftead of confidering the queftion, which is, whether it is not fitter to gather the doctrine of our church from her own anti-Calvinian catechifm, than from Ponet's Calvinian catechifm; Mr. Toplady, I fay, in his answer to Mr. Sellon, faftens upon the phrafe, poor young King Edward, and works it to fuch a degree, that he raifes from it clouds of fhining duft, and pillars of black fmoke; filling, if I remember right, a whole fection with the praifes of King Edward, and with reflections upon Mr. Sellon: and in his bright cloud of praife, and dark cloud of difpraife, the quellion is fo entirely loft, that I doubt if one in a hundred of his readers has the leaft idea of it, after reading two or three of the many pages, which he has written on

this head. By fuch means as this, it is, that he has made a ten or twelve filling book, in which the church of England is condemned to wear the badge of the church of Geneva. And the Calvinifls conclude, Mr. Toplady has proved, that fhe is bound to wear it ; for they have paid dear for the Proof.

That very gentleman, if fame is to be credited, has fome thoughts of attacking the Checks. If he favours me with juft remarks upon my mistakes (for I have probably made more than one; though I hope none is of a capital nature) he shall have my fincere thanks : but if he involves the queftion in clouds of perfonal reflections, and of idle digreffions; he will only give me an opportunity of initiating the public more and more into the myfteries of Logica Genevenfis. I therefore intreat him, if he thinks me worthy of his notice, to remember that the capital questions-the questions, on which the fall of the Calvinian, or of the anti-Calvinian doctrines of grace turn, are not, Whether I am a fool and a knave; and whether I have made fome miflakes in attacking Antinomianifm: but, Whether thofe miflakes affect the truth of the anti-falifidian and anti-pharifaic gofpel, which we defend;-Whether the twogofpel-axioms are not equally true;- -Whether our fecond fcale is not as fcriptural as the fir; Whether the doctrines of juflice and obedience are not as impor tant in their places, as the doctrines of grace and mercy ;-Whether the plan of reconciliation laid down in Sec. xvii. and the marriage of Free-grace and Free will, defcribed in Sect. xxiv. are not truly evangelical :Whether God can judge the world in righteoufnefs and wifdom, if man is not a free, unneceffitated agent ;Whether the juftification of obedient belivers by the works of faith, is not as feriptural as the juftification of finners by faith itfelf;-Whether the eternal falvation of adults is not of rumunerative juflice, as well as of free grace-Whether that falvation does not fecundarily

depe

depend on the evangelical, derived worthinefs of obedient, perfevering believers; as it primarily depends on the original and proper merits of our atoning and interceding Redeemer ;-Whether man is in a flate of probation; or, if you please, Whether the Calvinian doctrines of finished falvation and finished damnation are true; Whether there is not a day of initial falvation for all mankind, according to various difpenfations of divine grace;-Whether Chrift did not taste death for every man, and purchase a day of initial redemption and falvation for all finners, and a day of eternal redemption and falvation for all perfevering believers ;Whether all the fins of real apoftates; or foully fallen believers fhall fo work for their good, that none of them fhall ever be damned for any crime he fhall commit;-Whether they fhall all fing louder in heaven for their greatest falls on earth;--Whether our absolute, perfonal reprobation from eternal life, is of God's freecurath through the decreed, neceffary fin of Adam; or of God's just wrath through our own obftinate, avoidable perfeverance in fin;-Whether our doctrines of non neceffitating grade, and of juft-wrath, do not exalt all the divine perfections; and Whether the Calvinian doctrines of neceffitating grace and free wrath, do not pour contempt upon all the attributes of God, his Sovereignty not excepted.

Thefe are the important queftions, which I have principally debated with the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Shirley, Richard Hill, Efq; the Rev. Mr. Hill, the Rev. Mr. Berridge, and the Rev. Mr. Toplady. Some lefs effential collateral questions I have touched upon, fuch as, Whether Judas was an abfolutely-gracelefs hypocrite, when our Lord raifed him to apoftolic honours;-Whether fome of the most judicious Calvinifts have anot, at times, done juftice to the doctrine of Free-will

and

and co-operation, &c. Thefe and the like questions I call collateral, because they are only occafionally brought in; and because the walls which defend our doctrines of grace ftand firm without them. We hope therefore, that if Mr. Toplady, and the other divines who defend the ramparts of mystical Geneva, should ever attack the Checks, they will erect their main batteries against our towers, and not against some infignificant part of the scaffolding, which we could entirely take down, without endangering our Jerusalem, in the leaft. Should you refufe to grant our reafonable requeft; fhould you take up the pen to perplex, and not to folve the queftion; to blacken our character, and not to illuftrate the obfcure parts of the truth; you must give us leave to look upon your controverfial attempt as an evafive fhow of defence, contrived to keep a defencelefs, tottering error upon its legs, before an injudicious, bigoted populace.

If you will do us, and the public juftice, come to clofe quarters, and put an end to the Controverfy by candidly

The Rev. Mr. Whitefield, in his answer to the Bishop of London's paftoral letter, fays, "That prayer is NOT the SINGLE work of the Spirit without any CO-OPERATION OF OUR OWN, I readily confefs.-Who ever affirmed, that there was NO CO-OPERATION OF OUR OWN MINDS, together with the impulse of the Spirit of God?" Now that many reft short of falvation merely by not co-operating with the Spirit's impulfe, is evident, if we may credit these words of the fame reverend author: "There is a great difference between GOOD DESIRES, and good habits MANY have the one, who NEVER ATTAIN to the other. MANY (through the Spirit's impulfe) have GOOD DESIRES to fubdue fin; and yet RESTING (through want of co-operation) in those GOOD defires, fin has ALWAYS the dominion over them." WHIT. WORKS, Vol. iv. page 7. II. Mr. Whitefield grants in thefe two paffages all that I contend for in these pages, refpecting the doctrine of our concurrence or co-operation with the Spirit of freegrace, that is, refpecting the doctrine of Free-will: and yet his warmest admirers will probably be my warmest oppofers. But why? Because I aim at (what Mr. Whitefield sometimes overlooked) Confiflency.

candidly receiving our Scripture-Scales, or by plainly fhowing that they are falfe. Our doctrine entirely depends upon the two gofpel axioms, and their neceffary confequences, which now hang out to public view in our Gospel-balances. Nothing therefore can be more eafy than to point out our error, if our fyftem is erroneous. But, if our Scales are juß; if our doctrines of Grace and Justice,-of Free-Grace and Free-will are true it is evident that the Solifidians and the Moralifts are both in the wrong, and that we are, upon the whole, in the right. I fay upon the whole, because infignificant mistakes can no more affect the ftrength of our caufe, than a cracked flate, or a broken pane can affect the folidity of a palace, which is firmly built upon a rock.

or prove,

Therefore, if you are an admirer of Zelotes, and a Solifidian oppofer of Free-will, of the law of liberty, and of the remunerative juftification of a believer by the works of faith; raife no duft: candidly give up Antinomianifm; break the two pillars on which it ftands; neceffitating Free-grace, and forcible Free-wrath : if you can, that our SECOND SCALE, which is directly contrary to your doctrines of grace, is irrational, and that we have forged or mifquoted the paffages which compofe it.-But, if you are a follower of Honeftus, and a neglecter of Free-grace, and falvation by faith in Jefus Chrift; be a candid and honeft difputant. Come at once to the grand queftion; and terminate the Controverfy, either by receiving our FIRST SCALE, which is directly contrary to your scheme of doctrine or by proving that this fcale, is directly contrary to Reafon and Scripture, and that we have milquoted or mistaken most of the paffages which enter into its compofition. I fay moft, though I could fay al: for if only two paffages properly taken in connection with the context, the avowed doctrine of a facred writer, and the general drift of the fcriptures ;—if only two fuch paffages, I fay, fairly and truly fupport

each