they were" But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, &c."

Lest the foregoing remark should not suffice, it is supposed that the passage may speak only of such a believing as falls short of special faith. (38.) But unless it can be proved that the phrase children of light is ever used of any but true believers, this supposition is inadmissible.

Mr. B. speaks frequently of Christ's addresses being by way of "ministerial direction." Be it so. I do not see how this alters the case, unless we could suppose that Christ, as a preacher, directed people to a way in which it was not their duty to walk. In short, if there were never another passage in the bible besides the above, that were, in my opinion, sufficient to prove the point contested.

John vi. 29. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. From the connexion of this passage it was observed that the phrase work of God could not be understood of a work which God should work in them, but of a work which he required of them.* Mr. B. however takes it in the

* The reader is desired to observe, I never denied but constantly maintained, that faith, wherever it exists, is the effect

first sense, and thinks it "very clear and plain, from the whole context, that this special faith is no duty." (41.) To which I only say, that which appears so plain to Mr. Button, did not appear so to Mr. Brine. Mr. Brine, it seems, felt difficulties where Mr. Button feels none. Though he agrees with Mr. Button, that special faith is not a duty, yet he undoubtedly felt a difficulty in the passage in question. He felt the force of that remark, that the meaning of the answer must be determined by that of the question; and he did not suppose, when they asked, what shall we do that we may work the works of God? that they were enquiring what they must do that they might work such works as were peculiar to an arm of omnipotence. Mr. Brine, therefore, never pretended to understand it of a work which should be wrought in them, but of an ACT ACCEPTABLE, and PLEASING TO GOD."*

Dr. Gill, in his Cause of God and Truth, (part I. page 154.) understands the passage as speaking of such a faith as is not connected with salvation. Mr. Brine never pretended to this, but allows it to speak of special faith. The Doctor, however, does not suppose that the work of God means a work that was to be wrought in them, but a work that was required

of divine influence, as is every thing else in us, which is truly good: but I as well maintain, that it is man's duty; and that this, passage means the latter and not the former.

Motives to Love and Unity, p. 42.

D

of them. He there explains it, not of an operation of God, but of what was enjoined by his "will and commandment."

But Mr. Button thinks it "strange, if faith in Christ were the first great duty incumbent upon them, that they should first be directed to labour for that which should endure to everlasting life, as they were in verse 27," (p. 40.) It is replied, Labouring for that which should endure to everlasting life, includes faith in Christ, that being the only way in which eternal life can be obtained; and it is no unusual thing first to lay down a general direction, and then proceed to that which is more particular.

John v. 23. It is the Father's will that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, As Mr. B. has not thought proper to answer what was advanced from this passage, it need only be replied, that according to his sense of it, Christ ought, to be honoured in one character, but not in another. (42.)

As to what is said of Isai. Iv. 6. (the 7th verse I observe is passed over) that "Arminians have quoted it"-(42.) what is that to the purpose? It has some meaning; and one should suppose the Arminians quoting it has not destroyed that meaning. Mr. B. must excuse me in not being satisfied with a part of an exposition upon it from Dr. Gill. The whole of the Doctor's words I observe are not quoted. Abundant pardon was never promised to such an attendance, as this quotation makes to be their duty.

Simon Magus was exhorted to pray for the pardon

of sin. Mr. B. asks, "who denies it?" (43.) I answer, many who deny that faith is the duty of the unregenerate, deny that it is their duty to pray at all; and especially to pray for spiritual blessings, such as the forgiveness of sin. I rejoice, however, that Mr. B. is not of that sentiment.

But it was asked, in whose name ought Simon to have prayed for that blessing? To this we have received no answer. It was likewise asked, whether spiritual blessings ought to be sought in the only way in which they can be found, or in any other? In answer to this, we are told, "They may be sought after in the use of means without special faith; and that is all which is here exhorted to." Is Mr. B. sure of that? If so, Simon was barely exhorted to do as Cain did; to bring an offering without respect had to the great atonement for acceptance; to do that by which it was impossible to please God. After all, are we to understand Mr. B. that sinners ought not to seek spiritual blessings in the name of Christ, but in some other way? Surely he will not affirm this; and yet I do not see how he can avoid it.

But we are told, that Simon was not exhorted to " find, or get pardon of sin, but to pray for it." This is true, but not to the purpose. Faith in Christ is not the finding or getting of pardon, but the means of obtaining it. We come to Christ that we may have life. The one is the way in which we find or enjoy the other. This is farther confirmed by the passage which we shall next consider.

Rom. ix. 31, 32.-Because they sought it not by faith, &c. "By faith here is meant, says Mr. B. not the grace, but the doctrine of faith, the gospel, as appears clearly by its being opposed to the law." (43.) Suppose it were so, seeking righteousness by the gospel in opposition to the law, would amount to the same thing as the other. But this is not the case: faith is not here opposed to the law, but to the works of the law; and is therefore here to be understood of the right way of seeking righteousness, which is in the name of Christ.

Concerning those passages which exhort men to put their trust in the Lord, Mr. B. remarks, that "Trust is a natural duty; but what, he asks, has this to do with evangelical trust?" (44.) Why did he not answer what was said on that subject, in page 46? Why did he pass over that dilemma? As to what he says on the fourth psalm, that the persons there addressed were "good men"-(45.) it is replied, they certainly were wicked who are addressed in verse the 22d; and there is no notice given in any part of the psalm of a change of persons.To understand sacrifices of righteousness, of sacrifices righteously obtained, appears to me to be putting a low sense upon the phrase, and what I think is not at all countenanced by similar phraseology in scripture. The same mode of speaking occurs in Deut. xxxiii. 19. and in Psalm li. 19. neither of which passages can well be thought to mean barely, that the sacrifices should not be obtained by robbery.