the essence of vice does not lie in the very nature of vice, it is easy to shew that there are no virtuous nor vicious exercises in the universe. Agreeably, says Edwards in his opposition to Arminian writers: "That which makes vice hateful, is it's hateful nature and that which renders virtue lovely is it's lovely nature. It is a certain beauty or deformity which is inherent in the good or evil will, which is the soul of virtue and vice, and not in the occasion of it which is their worthiness of praise or dispraise according to the common sense of mankind."* And I wish Mr. T. would not only read, but digest that section of Edwards "on the essence of virtue and vice" For, it destroys the principle of his third argument.

On the whole we have no more reason to conclude that the exercises of convinced trembling sinners are duties, than we have to conclude, that the exercises of convinced trembling reprobates are duties. For the nature of these exercises is the same, whether the subjects of them are the prisoners of hope or the prisoners of despair. Accordingly, James compared the exercises of sinners with the exercises of devils : and when Mr. T. proves that the apostle's comparison is unjust, I will withdraw mine.

His fourth argument to prove that God requires duties which are destitue of holiness, presents next, as follows:

"The Holy Spirit is the great convincer of sin: hence, if there was nothing right in the best exercises of the unregenerate, we may con* Freedom of Will, page 274.

clude the Holy Spirit would always convince men of this, when he operated on their minds in conviction. But, is this the case with awakened sin

ners? surely, no."

:

To this we replied, not from the mere experience of men; but, from the inspired declaration of the apostle. "For, though Paul, before his conversion, was an advocate for actions destitute of holiness, yet after his conversion he thought very differently and under the guidance of inspiration, calls actions, destitute of love, nothing." But Mr. T. says, (page 42) "You have a little misquoted the apostle's words: For, he styles himself nothing without love, that is no true christian." What Mr. T. says here, relative to my citing the identical words of the apostle, is not pertinent. For, there is no difference between Paul's styling himself nothing, and his graceless actions NOTHING: because, if his graceless actions were something in point of obedience, he could not with propriety call himself nothing.

I further proved, that good men repent of all their unrenewed sorrow in consequence of sin, from this consideration, that all sorrow must be repented of, but godly sorrow. For, the apostle evidently knows of no sorrow but godly sorrow, and the sorrow of the world. The former, he tells us, worketh repentance not to he repented of; but the latter worketh death. And who can warrantably plead for the duty of that sorrow which worketh death? but, what is our author's reply? he says (page 43) “ Calvin understands this godly sorrow to mean that

grief for sin which is previous and preparatory to saving repentance." To this I cannot but reply; if Mr. T. had quoted the authority of Dr. Whitby, that distinguished Arminian, to remove his difficultý, he would have hit it exactly. For, the doctor says, in opposition to calvinists, "Godly sorrow though it arises from the motives which God and his good spirit sug gest is yet the sorrow of the convinced sinner." (page 266.) But, whether Mr. T. had a right to refer to Calvin as an authority, without quoting a word from him, the publick have now an opportunity to judge. For, Calvin says, (page 284)* while treating of conversion; "But be cause the turning beginneth at the abhorring and hatred of sin, therefore, the apostle maketh sorrowfulness such as is, according to God, the cause of repentance. And he calls the sorrowfulness according to God, when we are not only afraid of punishment, but do hate and abhor sin itself, for as much as we understand it displeaseth God." This passage is quoted from the very section which Mr. T. refers to in Calvin's Institutes, without quoting him. The most favourable construction I can put upon the matter is this, that M. T. was in too great haste to examine Calvin carefully. For, that godly sorrow, which according to Calvin,

*Norton's Translation.

Quoniam vero a peccati horrore et odio conversio inchoatur, ideo tristitiam quæ secundum Deum est penitentiæ causam facit Apostolus. Tristitiam autem secundum Deum appellat, ubi non pœnam modo exhorremus, sed peccatum ipsum, ex quo displicere Deo intelligimus, odimus and Instit. Lib. 3.Cap. 3. Sect. 7.

execramur.

consists in the hatred and abhorrence of sin itself, not only because we are afraid of punishment, but because sin displeases God, never was, and never will be, the sorrow of the impenitent sinner. The apostle himself, who says, that "Godly sorrow worketh repentance," was never the subject of godly sorrow, if it did not consist in hating and abhoring sin itself, because it displeases God. But, beside what has been said, it is a violation of scripture to say, that godly sorrow is destitute of holiness. For, with the same propriety Mr. T. may plead, that godly fear, or godly jealousy, or godly sincerity, and even godliness itself, is destitute of holiness; and refer to Calvin without quoting him for authority. "But it is as evident that god.ly sorrow is a holy exercise, as that godly fear and godly sincerity are holy exercises.

As Mr. T. had challenged an instance of christians confessing, that all their moral actions, before regeneration, were sinful in all respects, I cited a passage from David Brainerd's life, which he carefully revised and fitted for the press, (under the eye of president Edwards) just before his death. I saw, said Mr. B. "I saw it was selfishness had led me to pray. O how different did my duties now appear from what they used to! I used to charge them with sin and imperfection; but it was only on account of the wanderings and vain thoughts attending them. But, when I saw, evidently, that I had regard to nothing but self-interest, then they appeared vile mockery of God, self worship, and a continual course of lies. I saw

the whole was nothing but self-worship and a horrid abuse of God."

Mr. T. in replying to this human authority, is the most unfortune. For, from some cause or other, he unhapiply mistakes Mr. Brainerd's renewed exercises for his unrenewed ones, though the distinction is clearly marked in the relation. Mr. Brainerd in this passage, as ev-✨ ery kindred heart can testify, is modestly con trasting his renewed and unrenewed exercises. Accordingly he says, " Before this the more II did in duty the more I thought God was obliged to me. But, now the more I did in prayer, &c. the more I saw I was indebted to God for allowing me to ask for mercy." But, says Mr.

T.

upon this very sentence : "Here observe, he not only calls his performances duties; but says, that God allowed him to ask for mercy, and he was greatly indebted to him for it. Surely » he does not mean that HE WAS GREATLY INDEBTED ΤΟ GOD FOR ALLOWING HIM TO

SIN!!" I have only to desire Mr. T. to read that relation of experiences with impartiality; and he will find that Mr. B. thought himself a good man, when he said, " But now the more I did in prayer, the more I saw I was indebted to God for allowing me to ask for mercy."*

* Mr. T. cites several expressions of Mr. Brainerd, which shews that he had not critically examined the question in debate. But, it answers our purpose, since an instance of the nature was challenged, that the publick rela. tion which Mr. Brainerd gave of his own personal experience, does not coincide with Mr. T.'s theory nor judg

ment.