DEFENC OF HIS SECOND ARGUMENT EXAM. 81

shall go over before this people." It was also upon the immoveable footing of the divine promise, that David encouraged himself in the Lord his God, and that Josiah encouraged the faithful service of the Levites in the house of the Lord.

Having, therefore, once more corrected the wrong and dangerous use of the word encouragement, we will carefully state his argument, and try the strength of his defence. Probability is the word which properly expresses the sentiment under consideration. For, he does not hold that salvation is promised to the faithfulness of the unrenewed. The argument then is this in all its strength: It is more probable that sinners who perform the mere externals of religion will be saved, than those who do not; those, therefore, who perform them, do some part of their duty. I am cordially ready to grant as before, that it is much more probable that sinners will be saved who read the Bible, and steadily hear the gospel, than though they were wholly inattentive, and stupid. But, does it follow, that sinners do their duty merely because they are the subjects of that attention which increases the probability of their salvation? By no means. For, it is more probable that profane persons, who read the Bible and hear the gospel preached from Sabbath, to Sabbath, only to get an opportunity to ridicule the truth, will be saved, than though they did neither. How maný instances have been recorded of the conviction and conversion of profane men, in consequence of going to the house of God, when

they went only to catch an opportunity to defame christianity? And, does it follow, that they did any part of their duty merely because they were more likely to be saved, than tho' they had not given this attention? it does not, any more than it follows, that a wicked man does his duty, who cultivates his land to raise a crop only to feed his lusts; and yet cultivating his land is the only probable method to obtain a harvest. The reader is sensible that Mr. T.'s argument is founded wholly upon the doctrine of probability. Since, therefore, many actions which are confessedly wicked, are evidently connected with the probability of great good to the agents themselves, as well as to others, his argument fails. Probability will not support it any more than possibility or impossibility.

But, says Mr. T." Can any one in his senses believe, that God is constantly encouraging men to sin; and even binding them to it, by the ties of their own everlasting interest; that he is continually letting them know, that they must do that which is nothing but sin, or else their is no probability of their salvation!" To this pathetic petition Iwillingly reply: no person in his senses can believe it. For, God can no more encourage men to sin, than he can promise them a reward for sinning. But, what then? what has this to do with the argument fetched from probability? for, cannot God offer Christ to sinners and encourage them to receive him by the motive of everlasting life, without encour aging them to reject him by the motive of

everlasting death? if so the objection is groundless, as observed in the Dialogue, p. 55.

But where lies his mistake? he evidently takes it for granted, that it is both contrary to fact and the rectitude of Providence, that the same sinners are ever more likely to be saved when their sins are greater, than when they are less. But he must grant, that it is more probable that gospel sinners will be saved, than untutored heathens: he must also grant, that gospel sinners are more guilty than ignorant heathens; it is, therefore, evident that Providence renders it frequently more probable, that greater sinners will be saved than less ones. Who does not see that the Africans, who are brought into a land of light, where they are favoured with the best family and public instructions, are both greater sinners, and yet more likely to be saved, than they were before their removal from their native land? Mr. T. therefore, must not conclude, that the probability of conversion depends upon the decrease of sin. For, it is a fact that the increase of the probability of salvation is frequently attended with the increase of sinfulness. Nothing, therefore, can be more groundless in this connexion than that maxim of our author, "That God's providence is a sure explanation of his will in his word."* p. 36. For,

* President Edwards says, "God has not given us his Providence, but his word to be our governing rule. God is a Sovereign in his dispensations. He bestowed this blessing on Jacob, even when he had a lie in his mouth. He was pleased to meet with Solomon and bless him, while he was worshipping in an high place. He met with Saul

while God in his word commands sinners to repent and come to Christ immediately, his providence waits on them all their lives. While God sent the prophet, by his word, to tell the Jews to reform; he sent him in his providence, to make blind eyes blinder, and hard hearts harder. While, God, in his word, directed Pharaoh to let his people go, in the course of divine Providence, he hardened his heart that he refused.

On the whole, as long as Mr. T. makes the ground of his argument mere probability, it will inevitably follow, that the wicked who plow and sow with the basest designs, are in some measure obedient, because the cultivation of the earth is the only probable method to obtain a harvest. It will also follow, according to his argument, as shewn in the Dialogue, that the Jews were in some measure obedient to God, in killing the Lord of glory, becsuse there was no probability, nor possibility of salvation without his death.

Mr. T. says (page 37) I may venture to say, you do not cordially view the cases as paral le!" Answer. But this is a venture indeed, and

when going to Demascus to persecute Christ. The conduct of 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 no 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 it to be so; 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 forbidden."

no argument. For, the parallel certainly holds good in point of probability, and it is needed in no other respect. He undertook to prove, that sinners do their duty by attending to means from this single consideration, that the probability of their salvation depends upon their attention. But, we find the argument will not bear examination. For, to recall the cases referred to; it will follow from this method of reasoning, that profligates who attend to means only to ridicule religion, do their duty in some measure, because it is more probable they will be saved, than though they did not attend it will also follow, that those who cultivate their land to get a crcp, only to feed their lusts, do their duty in some measure, because cultivating land is the only method to obtain a harvest. They are parallel cases: and the parallel holds so strong that it destroys his argument fetched from probability. These therefore are his only alternatives: he must either give up his argument from probability, or run in a circle. But he prefers the latter. Accordingly he says (page 35) "Though there may be a probability of reaping in case of tilling with the basest exercises of heart, yet this probability has no connexion with such wicked exercises or ends." This he says to shew that the probaility of reaping, when men sow with bad views, is not so great as when they sow with good views. Then he concludes "So a diligent attention to means is encouraged: and this encouragement or probability of conversion bears some proportion to the seriousness, and earnest

H