unfound, or my reafonings weak and inconclufive, that one or other of the many Minifters, who heard me on these occafions, would point it out. That not hap pening, encourages me now, after fo long delay, to venture abroad thefe fheets. Confcious, how liable I am to judge amifs, I remain open to conviction. If I am chargeable with error, at least I am not chargeable with dark and artful methods to dif guise and varnish it over, by saying one thing, when I mean to infinuate quite another.

That Chrift, and the benefits of Redemp tion, were typified by the Law of Mofes; and that the spiritual sense of Mofes's Law, though veiled from the Jews in common, was in fome measure revealed to thofe mentioned, Heb. xi. I firmly believe. I doubt not, there were many more, whose eyes were opened, under that dark difpenfation, to behold wonderous things out of God's Law. Who they were, or how many, Scripture has not determined, and it would be presumptuous to conjecture.

I acknowledge, that hypocrites, whofe hypocrify is unknown, ought to be treated as members of the Chriftian Church.-I account that faith only faving, which is accompanied with an approbation of the Gospel Scheme of Salvation in all its parts, which leads us to come to God thro' Chrift for pardoning mercy and fanctifying grace, which purifies the heart from immoderate love of the world, and produces an unfeigned refpect to all God's Commandments.I think a divine revelation abfolutely neceffary, to discover how guilty creatures may emerge from the ruins of their apoftacy.Yet, I cannot fee, that confounding faith with its infeparable attendants, or neceffary effects, is confiftent with the important doctrine of juftification by faith only. And infidels, I apprehend, may be greatly hardened in their infidelity, by Christian Divines placing the neceffity of revelation, on a feeble foundation; while they argue from a fact, which Scripture and Reafon concur in contradicting, even this, that the law of nature was not fuffi ciently promulgated to the Heathens. O

thers,

thers, who difcern not the inconclufivenefs of that argument, may be led to forget the grand defign of the Gofpel, and to mistake it for a re-publication of nature's law.

If my notions of the Jewish and Christian difpenfations are juft, I gratefully acknowledge, I was first led to them by Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation, and Profesfor Venema's Differtations printed at Harlingen 1731. To these learned Writers I would have infcribed the following fheets, was it not, that it might have seemed a pleading their great Names in Patronage of what I have wrote. That I could not justly do. In fome particulars I have dif fered from them. Probably I may have advanced interpretations of Scripture, and improved my sentiments for purposes, which neither of them would chufe to adopt. And had it been otherwife, Reafon and Scripture, not human authority, must determine the queftion, what is Truth.

Attention to Scripture fuggefted to me the idea of Faith in the third Differtation. I can cite no uninfpired book in fup

port

port of it. The late Prefident Edwards, in his excellent Treatife on Religious Affections, and some other writers, have indeed laid down principles, from which it may, in my apprehenfion, be fairly inferred. Yet their ideas of the nature of faith, are fo different from mine, that certainly they difcerned not that inference. The careless Reader may imagine me favourable to Mr. Sandiman's Hypothefis. But a little reflection will discover a very confiderable difference in our fentiments. Mean time, his miftakes about faith are much lefs offenfive, than his discouraging unconverted finners from ufing the means of grace in or der to converfion, and his harshly cenfuring Divines as teaching a smooth way to hell, who have clearly afferted those truths, the right belief of which constitutes men Chriftians.

The general argument of the fourth Difsertation appears to me in the fame light, as it did three and twenty years ago, when I first published it. But fince that time, I have been fully convinced, that many of the most celebrated Philofophers entertained fentiments

fentiments abfolutely inconfiftent with the belief of the foul's immortality, and of future rewards and punishments: and have seen confiderable cause to fufpect that under the devout expreffions of the Stoic Philofophers, a fyftem was disguised, nearly allied to that of Spinola.

I am forry my distance from the prefs has occafioned fo many typographical errors. Most of them, I hope, will give little dif turbance to the attentive and judicious. But I earnestly intreat, that the Reader would at leaft correct the error in p. 137, which divefts my argument of all force, nay makes me affert the very reverse, of what I intended.

EDINBURGH, Sept. 1. 1764.

ER.