bible-christianity, and strengthens the hands of immoral gofpelers and flagitious antinomians.

If Zelotes and Honeftus will not weigh their doctrine in the Scripture-Scales, Candidus will do it for them. Prejudice has not yet captivated him, nor is he unacquainted with church-history: He believes, that the Pope himself is not infallible: He knows all that glitters as gofpel, is not gofpel-gold: He remembers, that for feveral hundred years, the worship of a confecrated wafer was esteemed a capital part of "orthodoxy" all England over; and he has obferved, that the cautions of my motto are particularly given with respect to thofe, who fay, I am Chrift, i. e. I re"prefent him as his gofpel-minifter, his faithful am"baffador; I thank God that I am not like that "Methodiit-ranter, or that dreadful heretic.” In a word, Candidus is modeft enough not to think any part of fcripture beneath his notice; and he is not fuch a bigot, as to fuppofe it a crime to compare fpiritual things with fpiritual; and to make the candle of truth burn brighter, by fnuffing away the black excrefcence of error.

To you therefore, Candidus, I particularly dedicate my Scripture-fcales. Defpife them not at a time, when the gofpel-gold, the coin current in the church, is far lighter in proportion, than the material gold was laft year in thefe kingdoms :-at a time when the antinomians have fo filed away the arms of the King of kings, that it is hard to diftinguish whether they are quartered with a dove, a goofe or an hawk; a lamb, a lion, or a goat :-at a time when the folifidians have fo clipped the royal motto, that many, instead of HOLINESS, inadvertently read FILTHINESS unto the Lord: at a time, when, on the other hand, pharifaic moralifts make it their bufinefs fo to deface the head of the King of faints on the gofpel-coin, that you might take it for the head of Seneca, or that of M. Antonine : at a time, when dealers in orthodoxy, publicly prefent you with one half of the golden truth, which they want to pafs for the whole-at a

time, when fome openly affert, that dung is goldthat impure doctrines are the pure gofpel; and that gold is "dung"-that good works are "drofs:"at fuch a time, I fay, ftand upon your guard, Candidus: Beware of men; beware of me; nor use my fcales till you have tried them by the old and new teftament, those balances of the fanctuary, which you have at home. But if upon clofe examination you find that they differ chiefly in cheapnefs, fize, and conveniency, adopt the invention; and when you are going to read a religious book, or to hear a fermon, imitate the prudent trader, who goes to receive money; take your fcales and use them according to the following directions.

(1) Keep them even. Let not the strings of your intangled affections for this or that preacher, or your attachment to one or another party, give an hafty preponderance to either fcale. Fairly fufpend your judgment till it honeftly turn by the full weight of truth and evidence. Confider, that the Lord is a God of knowledge, by whom actions are weighed; and call upon him for impartiality; remembering, that, with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

(2) Please to obferve, that preaching the doctrines, which follow No. 1, does not prove that a minifter is an antinomian; any more than preaching the doc trines, which follow No. II, proves that he is a pharifee; but only preaching them in fuch a manner as directly or indirectly attacks, oppofes, or explains away the doctrines in the other scale; in open defiance of one half of the fcriptures, which reprefent free-grace and holy free-will as the flux and reflux of divine grace, by which alone the city of God flourishes, and. thro' which only her commerce with heaven can be profitably carried on. If therefore you hear a man fay, I was by nature a child of wrath, and by practice the chief of finners-Not by works of righteousness which I have done, but by grace I am faved," &c. fet him not down for a son of voluntary humility and if he cries out, "I have lived in all good confcience unto

is fuch a thing as choice, liberty, or free will in the world? And if there be, is not this choice, liberty, or free will the reverse of neceffity, as well as of unwillingness? If I freely chufe to blow my brains out, is it not evident that I have a liberty NOT to commit that crime, as well as a willingness to do it? Would not Zelotes expofe his good fenfe by seriously afferting, that, if he were in prifon, a willingness to continue there would make him free; unlets, together with that willingness, he had a power to go out if he pleased ? And is it right in him to impofe the doctrine of neceffity upon the fimple, by playing upon the double meaning of the word free? I beg leave to explain this a little more.

According to the full meaning of the word Free, can it be faid with any propriety, that Judas went freely to hell, if he never had power to go to heaven? Or that David went freely to heaven, if he was always hindered by an abfolute, irrefiftible decree from going to hell? And alluding to mechanical freedom, I afk, Was the motion of those scales ever free, which never were as free to ascend as defcend? Does not experience convince us, that, when one scale is kept from freely defcending, the oppofite fcale is by the fame means kept from afcending freely? Is it not evident, from the fame rational principles, that no finner can freely chufe death in the error of his ways, who has not power to chufe life; a free choice of death, neceffarily implying a free refufal of life; and a free choice of life, neceffarily fuppofing a free refusal of 'death, in a state of temptation and probation? And is not this doctrine perfectly agreeable to fuch fcriptures as these, He fhall know to refufe the evil and chufe the good:CHUSE whom you will ferve :-Because ye REFUSED, &c. and DID NOT CHUSE the fear of the Lord, &c. therefore Shall they eat the fruit of THEIR OWN way, and be filled with THEIR OWN devices?

Upon the preceding obfervations feconded by the arguments, which fhall follow :-upon the confent

of

Containing fome general obfervations upon God's FREE GRACE and our personal FREE WILL, which are reprefented as the ORIGINAL causes of SALVATION and

DAMNATION.

C

NICERO, heathen as he was, afferted, that there is no great, and confequently no good man [fine aliquo afflatu divino] without fome influence from the Deity. This influence our Church calls infpiration; ["Cleanfe the thoughts of our hearts by the infpiration of thy Holy Spirit ;"] and St. Paul calls it Grace, giving that name, fometimes to the fountain of divine goodness, and fometimes to the innumerable freams, which flow from that eternal fountain. A man must then be darker than a thoughtful heathen, and as blind as an atheist, if he abfolutely denies the existence of divine Grace. And, on the other hand, if we deny, that there is in man a power to will or to chufe, the words I will, I chufe, I will not, I refuse, which are in every body's mouth, will prove us perverje. Now, if there is fuch a thing as grace in God, and will or power of chufing in man; both that grace and that will are FREE. The nature of the thing, and the well-known meaning of the words, imply as much; a bounty, which we are obliged to bestow, hardly deferving the name of grace or favour; and a choice, to which we are forced-a choice, which is not accompanied with an alternative, deferving the name of neceffity or compulfion, better than that of vill, choice, or liberty.

Again: Are not God's grace and man's will perpetually mentioned, or alluded to by the facred writers ? Nay, does not Honeftus himself fometimes indirectly fet his feal to the doctrine of free grace, when he im plores divine mercy at the foot of the throne of grace? And warmly as Zelotes exclaims against the doctrine of free will, does he not frequently grant that there

is fuch a thing as choice, liberty, or free will in the world? And if there be, is not this choice, liberty, or free will the reverse of neceffity, as well as of uncillingness? If I freely chufe to blow my brains out, is it not evident that I have a liberty NOT to commit that crime, as well as a willingness to do it? Would not Zelotes expofe his good fenfe by seriously afferting, that, if he were in prifon, a willingness to continue there would make him free; unlets, together with that willingness, he had a power to go out if he pleafed ? And is it right in him to impose the doctrine of neceffity upon the fimple, by playing upon the double meaning of the word free? I beg leave to explain this

a little more.

According to the full meaning of the word Free, can it be faid with any propriety, that Judas went freely to hell, if he never had power to go to heaven? Or that David went freely to heaven, if he was always hindered by an abfolute, irrefiftible decree from going to hell? And alluding to mechanical freedom, I ask, Was the motion of thofe fcales ever free, which never were as free to ascend as defcend? Does not experience convince us, that, when one scale is kept from freely defcending, the oppofite fcale is by the fame means kept from afcending freely? Is it not evident, from the fame rational principles, that no finner can freely chufe death in the error of his ways, who has not power to chufe life; a free choice of death, neceffarily implying a free refufal of life; and a free choice of life, neceffarily fuppofing a free refufal of death, in a state of temptation and probation? And is not this doctrine perfectly agreeable to fuch fcriptures as these, He fhall know to refufe the evil and chufe the good: CHUSE whom you will ferve:-Because ye REFUSED, &c. and DID NOT CHUSE the fear of the Lord, &c. therefore Shall they eat the fruit of THEIR OWN way, and be filled with THEIR OWN devices?

Upon the preceding obfervations feconded by the arguments, which fhall follow-upon the confent

of