tal. There is no doubt, a difference, as to the degree or strength of depravity, among those creatures who are shut up in the prison of hell, tho' they are all entirely destitute of holiness. And among the wicked in this world of mercy, there is a very great difference, as to their acting out their depravity in the commission of crimes, according to the different degrees of restraint which God lays upon them. Yet when they are made to see the plague of their own heart, sinners of all descriptions are convinced, that they are entirely sinful,that they have never been kept back from committing sin, from any love to holiness. I do not perceive that Mr. B. took any particular notice of this class of arguments. The entire sinfulness of an unrenewed state, was in the fourth place, argued from the Bible description of the total unacceptableness of the most specious works, which are performed in that state. It was shown, that not only the plowing of the wicked is said to be sin, but also their sacrifices and prayers. See Prov. xv. 8, 29 xxi. 27, and xxviii. 9. I do not find any place in his Letter, where he attempted to look this argument in the face. If he had attempted it, he must have made such a distinction between the wicked, as would contradict that very plain and pointed declaration of the Saviour : "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Mat. xii. 30.

The fifth argument which was made use of, to support the doctrine of the entire depravity of the natural heart, was derived from what the scriptures say concerning the necessity of a change of heart. They speak much of a change, which is fundamental and instantane

ous.

It is represented as so fundamental, that it is the beginning of a new life. The subject of this change is represented as being born again; or as being raised from the dead; or as being created anew. The character of the sinner must undergo an essential change, to warrant these scripture representations. That the change is not only fundamental, but instantaneous, is evident from such considerations as these: 1. All mankind are, through the whole Bible, put into two moral classes; the righteous and wicked, saints and sinners, lovers and haters of God; those who are with Christ,

and those who are against him; those who are born of God, and those who are not born of him. If these two moral classes include the whole of mankind, then it will follow, that no period of time can be taken up, in passing from the bad to the good class. If we do not belong to the good, we must belong to the bad; if we do not belong to the regenerate, we must belong to the unregenerate; unless it should be found, that the word of God describes a third class of men, who are neither converted nor unconverted.

2. It is evident that the word of God makes this change, which we call the new birth, absolutely necessary to our being prepared for heaven. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” But it is very obvious from scripture, that all men are, at this, and every moment, candidates for heaven or hell. But if any period of time, even one second, were to be occupied in effecting the transition from one state to the other, during that period, the subject of the change would be a candidate for neither happiness nor misery.

According to our views of depravity, it is not at all difficult, to tell what the scriptures mean by regeneration. It is the beginning of holiness in a creature rendered totally corrupt by the fall. It is a new heart and a new spirit: it is a new creqture ;—it is the commencement of spiritual life, where before there was nothing but spiritual death. Now, we must either give up our belief of any such fundamental change in the human character, or we must retain our belief of the entire sinfulness of every unrenewed heart.

We are persuaded, that our theological opponents must give up the doctrine of regeneration, as applied to any particular part of a man's life, and as distinguished from progressive sanctification in believers, or adopt the doctrine of the total depravity of all the unregenerate. If they made regeneration to mean the same as perfect sanctification, or the expelling of all depravity from the heart, then we could see how a date might be fixed to regeneration. On this supposition it would not be a fundamental change, like being changed from death to life; from sin to holiness; but it would be

something, which could be distinguished from the antecedent work of the spirit, as it would be the bringing of the work to a perfect state. But in their books they speak of perfect sanctification as subsequent to the new birth. They do not consider all who are born of God, as having obtained to perfect holiness; nor all who are not born of God, as entirely destitute of holiness. Now we wish to know, when a sinner who has some holiness, inay be considered as having holiness enough, to denominate him a new creature. This is no curious specu lative point. It is highly interesting, that it should be determined with precision. If we be created anew, we are in Christ Jesus, and have the promise of heaven ; but if we are not created anew, we are under condemnation; and dying in this state, we shall be miserable for ever. If some holiness, some conformity to God, be no evidence that I have passed from death to life, I anxiously demand, How much holiness, how much conformity to God must I possess, to denominate me a new-born soul? Going on the ground of the total sinfulness of the unregenerate, the question is easily answered: We can say to the anxious inquirer, If you have any holiness, any conformity to God, you are a new creature, you have passed from death unto life.

Mr. B. has no where in his book, as I can discover, described this moral change, unless this be describing it, to say that it means the same as justification. In opposing the sentiment, that all unconverted men are entirely sinful, he takes pains to show, that in their unconverted state they have grace, and light and convic tion; and of course that they cannot be entirely sinful. Did he mean to say, that this grace, and light, and conviction effected a change in their nature, before they experienced the great change of the new birth? If so, why does he not put the new birth back as far as to that change of nature ? But if he did not mean to say, that this grace, light and conviction effected a change in their sinful nature, why does he bring them forward, to disprove the total depravity of the unconverted. We believe, as well as they, that God is very merciful and long-suffering towards the wicked-that they are greatly favored with divine restraints, whereby they are pre

vented from much external wickedness, which they would otherwise commit; this we are willing to call restraining grace: We also believe, that God enlightens their understandings with his truth, and awakens and convinces their consciences by his Spirit; but believing all this, does nothing towards destroying our belief of the total depravity of their hearts, even up to the moment of regeneration. Mr. B. says, p. 72. Indeed, if I understand your meaning upon this subject, -you make the first dawn of spiritual light upon the human heart, to be regeneration." When light is put for holiness, then I surely believe, that the first dawn of it upon the human heart, is regeneration But when light means any thing besides holiness, I believe there may be not only a spark, but a full blaze of it, and yet the heart remain unrenewed. We are far from calling the first serious impressions, of which sinners are the subjects, by the name of regeneration. No, we believe, that sinners may not only be seriously impressed, but even deeply weighed down with conviction, and spend all their time in reading their Bible, or in the closet and in religious meetings, and still possess, to perfection, that carnal mind which is enmity against God, and would dethrone him, if it were armed with sufficient power.

We now demand of those who deny the total depravity, or entire sinfulness of the unregenerate, whether we err in representing regeneration as a radical or fundamental change? If we do not, why does not the reality of such a change, prove the entire sinfulness of those who have not experienced it? We cannot see why the argument, derived from the real and fundamental change produced by regenerating grace, does not conclusively prove, that before this change, there is no holiness in the heart. Now, we do not find that Mr. B. made any direct attempt to show that this argument was not conclusive.

Another argument which was made use of in the Sermon, to prove that none have any degree of holy affection, except the regenerate, is this; That the promise of eternal life is made to the least degree of holy affection, and yet is evidently made to none but the re

generate. This argument my opponent takes some notice of in a Note, pp. 72, 73. To show that I am wrong in confining the promise to the regenerate, he quotes Isa. Iv. 7, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, and he will abundantly pardon." "In these words," he adds, "the promise of pardon is made to the wicked, on condition of their returning to God." Did Mr. B. understand me to say, that while men were in an unrenewed state, they did not, and could not know, that there were any promises contained in God's word? or that these promises were not held out as any inducement to them to turn to God? If he did understand me so, no such thing was intended. We well know, that God promises to the greatest and most hell-deserving sinners in the world, that if they repent, they shall be forgiven; if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they shall be saved: but while they remain impenitent and unbelieving, the promises are not theirs. They cannot plead a single promise as belonging to them. They are children of wrath, being under the sentence of condemnation. In the gospel, commands and promises are so connected, as perpetually to keep this idea in view, that the promises do not belong to us, unless we obey the commands. No one can suppose that all the sinners in the world have a tight to claim the promise of forgiveness, because they are all told, that if they repent, they shall be forgiven. The promise is as it were, hid behind the command-when by the spirit of obedience, we come up to the command, we then find and enjoy the promise. He who has evidence that he has complied with divine requirements, may plead with God, as David did; "Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope."

Having explained our meaning, let the argument be weighed. The question now is, whether the promise of eternal life be made to any sinner who is not born of God-who has not become a new creature-who has not passed from death to life? Does he possess, or can he possess any thing, while he remains unrenewed, which will entitle him to one of those promises which ensure eternal life? Has not the word gone out of the