If

the consequence is undeniable, that they are destitute of natural ability to repent immediately. For not repenting immediately, therefore, they are not blameable; because no man is blameable for not performing that action immediately which must necessarily be deferred or postponed for the sake of previously performing other actions of a different nature. the sinner must read more, and hear more, and pray more, and know more, and have more convictions previously to repenting, it is naturally impossible for him to repent immediately. Mr. D.'s theory, like that of his copartner in this debate, makes a natural inability of the sinner's dependence, for he makes the course of Providence a fatal bar in the way of the sinner's immediate repentance. But, this argument he must relinquish. For it proves infinitely too much for the safety of souls and the honour of God. With equal pertinency he may plead that it is the duty of many sinners to travel in the broad way which leads to destruction: for this is the course of Providence. If we make the Providence of God the rule of duty in one case, why not in another? Why not in all cases? Why cannot we prove according to this principle, that it is the duty of all sinners to delay repentance just as long as they do delay it, because long and even fatal delays correspond with the course of Providence! Why cannot we prove, according to this, that it was the duty of the Jews to harden their hearts and to make themselves more and more blind? For God in his Providence sent the Prophet to

them to effect this most dreadful purpose. purpose. But enough has been said, to prove that the Provi dence of God is not the rule of duty. For the Providence of God does not affect the liberty or moral agency of men: therefore, it is not the rule of duty. Accordingly, says president Edwards, "God has not given us his Providence, but his word to be our governing rule, God is a Sovereign in his dispensations. He bestowed the blessing upon Jacob even when he had a lie in his mouth. He was pleased to meet with Solomon and bless him while worshipping in an high place. He met with Saul while going to Damascus to persecute Christ. The conduct of divine Providence with its reasons is too little understood by us to be improved as our rule. God has his way in the sea, his path in the mighty waters, and his footsteps are not known. And he gives none account of any of his matters. But, God has given us his word to this very end, that it might be our rule and therefore has fitted to be so; and has so ordered it, that it may be understood by us. And strictly speaking, this is our only rule. If we join any thing else to it, as making it our rule, we do that for which we have no warrant, yea, that which God himself has absolutely forbidden. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar." Psalm xxx. 6.

5. It is evident that Mr. D. does not admire the harlot while pleading her cause, in the very words of his sermon. This he says "Is ingenious; but the whole force of it lies in

changing the question." But the good man is mistaking the matter. The question is not changed. For does he not plead for the propriety of prayers which are made upon natural principles merely? Does he not say in the 9th page of his sermon, while distinguishing between the right and wrong prayers of sinners "Is there nothing beside wicked principle in them? is natural conscience wicked principle? is the natural principle of self-preservation wicked principle? they have these to name no more : and it is not for nothing that the God of nature hath implanted them. They are in all men a check upon the evil propensities of the heart: they are also prompters to action, by which even the wicked are sometimes put upon doing what ought to be done: and in particular upon praying to God for needed mercy of a temporal nature." This is Mr. D.'s divinity. Thus he teaches sinners to pray from natural principles : and to pray for needed mercy of a temporal nature. And though I introduced the harlot praying her injured Prince to save her from death, and praying from natural principles too, in the very style of his sermon, he says, I have changed the question. But how is the quèstion changed? For, is it not as proper for the impenitent harlot to pray her injured husband to save her from death, because death is painful and dreadful, as it is for an impenitent sinner to pray God to save him from eternal death because it is most dreadful? Is not the principle the same in both cases? why then does Mr. D. approve the prayer of the impenitent, and disapprove the prayer of the harlot ? why does he like one and dislike the other? for, both act

upon his "Natural principle of self-preservation.” If it were possible for sinners to pray from natural principles, with natural exercises merely, and not moral ones, his natural theology might obtain but it is not. For sinners are moral agents and all their prayers are of a moral nature. He must therefore either reject all the prayers of the impenitent, or approve the prayer of the harlot.

6. To obtain relief, he says the same method of illustrating may be practised upon my theory. But this is another great mistake. For my theory does not plead for animal prayers, but for christian, holy prayers. When I get lost, and plead, that animal exercises, or any other exercises are duties, except holy exercises, he will have opportunity to expose my theory, as I have exposed his theory:

but

while I make the word of God my only rule, and plead only for those exercises which God will approve at the great day, it is impossible for him to expose my theory. For as some philosophers say, "Ridicule is the test of truth." But,

7. The most notable part of his appendix now presents. He says, "The allegory from first to last keeps out of sight the object of pray

er.

." Here the preacher seems to forget his own Sermon, and the teacher his own instructions. For the allegory is obviously founded upon the object of prayer as he has displayed it in his Sermon: for speaking of sinners he says, (p. 9) "Is there nothing beside wicked principle in them? Is natural conscience wicked princi

ple? Is the naturul principle of self-preservation evil principle? They have these to name no more. By which even the wicked are put upon doing what ought to be done: and in particular upon PRAYING TO GOD for needed mercy of a TEMPORAL NATURE. Thus Mr. D. teaches sinners to pray from the natural principle of self-preservation: and to let him and others see the natural features of his praying sinner, I introduced the harlot, begging her injured king to save her life. She fetches her plea from the very bowels of his theory. She prays, according to Mr. D. not from the principle of lust, which at the present time, is under a check, but, she prays from the innocent principle of selfpreservation. And why does Mr. D. say, without reviewing his sermon, that the "Allegory from first to last keeps out of sight the object of prayer ?" For it certainly keeps it constantly in sight, upon a first principle of his sermon. As the sermon was preached to support those prayers which are supposed to be made from natural principles, or the principle of self-preservation; so the harlot is fairly presented, as praying and begging upon his natural principles, and even in the natural, expressive, and persuasive language of his sermon.

The allegory I find does not please Mr. D.: and no wonder. For it reduces him to the dire necessity of approving the harlot's prayer or of discarding the first principle of his theory. But I will add no more: for Mr. Dana is my friend and brother and I generally love to hear him preach, because he rarely indeed