conviction, that the moral impotence of Sinners is no more an excuse for their slighting the Call of the Gospel, than it is for their violating the Commands of the Law. As the greatest disinclination to regard divine Authority cannot release a rational creature from an obligation to obey God's precepts; so the utter aversion of a sinner, to regård the kindness of God our Saviour, cannot release him from an obligation thankfully to comply with his Invitations.

At the same time, Mr. Hall remained as strenuous an advocate as ever for the necessity and efficacy of divine Influence, to induce sinners or saints to comply cordially with their indispensable Duty; and he was the more abundantly confirmed in a belief of the sovereign freeness of Grace, by reflecting that the inexcusable Perverseness of the human heart, which renders the agency of the divine Spirit so necessary, must at the same time evince that we are utterly unworthy of his gracious interposition. The greater is our reluctance to come unto God, in the way which he has prescribed for our return, the more undeserving are we of being drawn unto him by his Holy Spirit.

But this excellent man remarked, that if the

evangelical truth, which appeared to him fully to accord with the sacred standard.

On one particular, which many readers might expect Mr. Hall to have noticed, he has hardly touched, viz. the denial of the Law of God as a rule of conduct to Believers. This Sentiment he ever considered as so gross a piece of Antinomianism, that he did not suppose any man could embrace it, whose conscience was not seared as with a hot iron. to an extreme respecting the obligation of sinners to repent and believe the Gospel, would have reprobated this Doctrine as tending to the greatest Licentiousness. Dr. Gill, Mr. Brine, Mr. Toplady, &c. utterly condemned so vile a sentiment. But within the last twenty years how many who exclaimed against Mr. Hall and his brethren, for embracing new sentiments respecting the Duty of Sinners, have readily departed from their former guides, and embraced new notions respecting the Duty of Believers.

The eminent Divines, who verged

To me it appears a most marvellous instance of the Deceitfulness of Sin, if any man can think himself a friend to evangelical Religion, who +by sinking unbelievers below all Obligation, and raising believers above all Obligation, almost anni

hilates both Duty and Sin, and so leave no room for the exercise of either pardoning Mercy or sanctifying Grace. The apostolic axiom, where there is no Law there is no Transgression, justly leads us to conclude, that they who are below or above Law have no guilt, and need no Saviour : there is no room to shew the riches of his Grace, or the efficacy of his Blood, in the pardon of those who never deserved punishment. If the Command be exceedingly narrow, our sins must be very few, and the pardon of them a small matter. And if the effectual Influence of the Spi rit be supposed to be the source, rule, and measure of Obligation, no one can have reason to mourn for sin; since he always does as much as he was powerfully inclined to do, and by this supposition it was not his Duty to do any more. Thus sinless Perfection is easily attained, though in the backward way; not by coming up to the standard of Rectitude, but by bringing it down to our level. Most comfortable Doctrine to a carnal heart!

The first Edition of this excellent work was very incorrectly printed. This will I trust be found very much improved, by the care of my respected Brother, the Editor, who is endeared

to me by the friendship of forty years, (for it is very near so long since we were baptized together at Northampton) and by many corrections made by the Author himself, as well as by the addition of a clear Analysis. May God bless the re-printing of it, to lead many more fully into the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, is the earnest Prayer of

The Reader's cordial Friend,

and Servant for Christ's sake,

JOHN RYLAND.

PREFACE

TO THE THIRD EDITION.

AN aversion to religious controversy may arise from two causes, in their nature the most opposite ; a contempt of religion itself, or a high degree of devotional feeling. They who consider the objects of religion as visionary and uncertain, or who, rejecting revelation, feel their inability to find a place where they may fix their footing, will naturally feel an emotion of contempt for theological contests, similar to that which we should experience towards men who were fighting for possessions in the air.

There are not a few who would engage with the utmost seriousness and ardour in a dispute on the nature and effects of paper currency, who would be ashamed of being suspected of directing their attention for a moment to the most weighty questions in theology. Attentive to all the aspects and combinations of the material and of the political world, they are accustomed to regard religion as a

b