The condition in which mankind is placed, must occupy an important connection with the dispensations of God. And there can be no doubt that if offers of grace are true, they must be adapted to the condition of those to whom they are tendered. If divine favours are offered and tendered, they must be offered to those who have vision adapted to the nature of the objects, a sense of their importance, a capacity to love them, and the ability to embrace them. Without these qualifications I am at a loss to conceive, how the Divine Being could introduce such a system without destroying the consistency of his character. For if there is no harmony in the relation between man's situation and the offers of grace, there can be no adaptation; and if no adaptation, no utility; and if no utility, no propriety; and if no propriety, no wisdom and prudence : and if not, it must be allowed, that either God has introduced a system which was framed in ignorance, and introduced without judgment, or else that he is not the author of offered and unavailable mercy. To say that it was Adam's duty by the law of creation to accept the offers of mercy when none were made, is to affirm what no wise man will ever believe; because Adam's situation could not require the exercise of mercy, except he had been created a sinful miserable man. Offers of mercy therefore could not be made unto him, and as such be could not be under any obligation to accept them. Now if offers of grace do not arise out of the law of creation, they must out of some other law or covenant. This other law, if there is one, must arise out of a new relation, and be adapted to a new dispensation; and this new dispensation must be suited to the nature of this new relation : that is to say, the favours dispensed must agree with the nature and magnitude of the relation and situation of those for whom they are designed. We are therefore, taught to expect a conformity between offers of mercy and man's present condition. Let us then examine the point.

1. Has, or has he not, a visual organ corresponding with the nature of offered grace. The reader will perceive that this is one important enquiry, and must be viewed in connection with the subject of discussion. Here is a proper place to ask of what are the offers composed? It will be answered, grace in its various exercises-regeneration, pardon, justification, and all evangelical blessings. 1 enquire again-are these blessings spiritual in their nature? I may presume upon an answer in the affirmative. I then ask, must they not be viewed by a spiritual mind? or, can a carnal man discover spiritual things? The scripture says, he cannot. And if we appeal to scripture as an umpire, we ought to he satisfied with its decisions. And if we are, we can be at no loss on this subject, for we are assured that the things of the Spirit must be spiritually discerned, and that this the natural man cannot do; that is, he has no spiritual perception.

Mr. Hinton, in his theology, asks this question,--, Is he (that is, man) so altered, that the motives addressed to him have lost either their suitableness or their sufficiency? The whole of the discussion depends upon an answer to the enquiry.'-p. 137. On the same page, he observes,' I am required to have a good disposition : and I am endowed with an apparatus which enables me to have one, namely, a power of discerning truths, which, if duly regarded, -will infallibly produce it.' As to the apparatus,' does Mr. H. mean to say, that he is possessed of natural faculties; such as the understanding, will, memory, &c. and that he is capable of exercising these faculties on spiritual objects, or exposing them to such objects, in order for them to be acted upon, and then to act upon him so as to produce a ' good disposition?' I conceive such is his meaning. I would next enquire in what condition is this apparatus? Mr. H. seem to think a very sound one. He says it has sustained no structural mischief. Now, if Mr. H. had all the members of his animal system dislocated by a fall, and his reasoning faculties deranged, would he consider that any structural mischief had been produced? And would he think a person a very clever logician, who was gravely to argue, that the offers which were made to him were sufficient motives to induce him to run a race? and that nothing hindered him but his stubborn perverseness? He might probably think so, but this would be a proof of his derangement. But suppose Mr. H. was to view another person in such a condition, would he affirm that nothing more was necessary than the restoration of the man's senses? Or, supposing he had his senses but not the disposition, yet that if he properly disposed of his dislocated system, he would have the disposition, and that nothing more was necessary? Then as to the question on which the whole subject depends. Is he so altered that the motives addressed to him have lost either their suitableness or sufficiency?' The ' motives' --assuming, which is all that can be done when ideas are concealed in ambiguous language, which is a mode that some people choose, who think they must be deep because they are dark, or profound because they are obscure; but, assuming, that by motives are designed the offers and tenders of salvation, if men will but repenteed- believe, or exercise their apparatus, and likewise the threatenings of the law if they will persist in their obstinacy and unbelief; that is, if they will not adjust, fix, and work the apparatus. Is man so altered that these motives have lost either their suitableness or sufficiency?' I answer, that such motives were never addressed to man before the alteration took place, and that therefore, they cannot be said to have lost, either their suitableness or sufficiency. The question thus reduced to simple form, stands thus-are offers and tenders of grace either suitable or sufficient? Suitable to the condition of those to whom they are addressed, and sufficient to make unregenerate men gracious persons, or sufficient to make saints of sinners. I answer, NO; in my view they are not. What induce me to think so, are the following considerations. 1. He has no mental perception; and I cannot conceive, how any motives addressed to a person, can be either suitable or available if he has not the means of seeing it, " Mine eye also affecteth my heart," says Jeremiah. But how the heart can be affected in a moral point of view, by what the mind cannot conceive, is what I believe few people will ever comprehend. I will allow, that man has the same apparatus he had in Eden ; I will grant also, that this apparatus is capable of being adjusted and directed towards different objects; and I will further admit, that the faculties of the mind have sustained no structural injury, if by structural injury is meant the annihilation of them, or of any part of them. But while I make these concessions, I conceive, 1. That an apparatus cannot be a self-moving combination of materials. 2. That they must therefore be acted upon. 3. That their action will be according to the nature and impetus of the agent. 4. Allowing the disposition to be the agent, their action must agree with the nature of the disposition. 5. That which is the moving cause cannot be acted upon by that which is moved. The disposition cannot be acted upon by the apparatus, because the operations of the apparatus are supposed to be conducted by the disposition. 6. The apparatus or faculties, therefore, cannot possibly change the disposition. 7. And if not, offers of grace cannot be adapted to answer the end proposed, because a change of disposition is said to be one great end designed.

But further, they are not suitable. For, 1. Man never had a principle, or disposition, suited to spiritual objects; and therefore, could not give the faculties a spiritual direction. What incline me to think thus, is, 1. A spiritual disposition must be produced by a spiritual principle ; a spiritual principle is a spiritual blessing; and spiritual blessings were all given in Christ before the foundation of the world. We had all natural and moral blessings in Adam, after the world was founded, but all spiritual blessings before the foundations of the earth were laid. Spiritual blessings seem to be the result of pactional stipulations, and not the fruit of the law of creation. If Adam had this principle, how was it that he never knew of the headship of Christ? and how came he to lose it, and hide himself in the garden? and after he had lost it, (supposing that it could be lost) why did he not prefer the sheltering covert of the atonement to the thicket in paradise? If I mistake not, his duties and enjoyments arose out of the covenant of works, and not out of the covenant of grace. A covenant of works must look to natural principles for its fulfillment, and the covenant of grace must regard spiritual principles. Now Adam was not born under the covenant of grace, but created under the covenant of works. I conclude, therefore, that he had no spiritual, or supernatural blessings, and cannot help thinking but my conclusion is well supported; and if it is, the suitableness of offered mercy to carnal people cannot be pleaded for any longer. And then away go the scheme of offered mercy, Mr. H. himself being judge.

But 3. Supposing that my conclusion should not be so safe as I imagine it to be-I ask, do not the scriptures represent mankind in a situation, which must deny the suitability and utility of offered mercy? For, as I have said before, a man is without sight: " the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Rom. xi. 7. " Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance of them, because of the blindness of their heart." Eph. iv. 18. " Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." Eph. v. 8 No person will doubt but a mental blindness is intended, and as such no spiritual objects can be perceived. Now whether my eyes are destroyed, or whether they are sealed up by the eyelids, my darkness or blindness is complete; and what suitableness there could be between my eyes and corporeal objects, let suitable persons judge. If it was intended to work upon my mind, by the representation of objects, it would be obviously necessary to give me a seeing faculty, or restore that faculty to its functional office before the objects are represented ; if not, there could be no suitableness between the objects and my condition. And it is plain, that there can be no more suitableness nor utility in offers of grace to blind sinners, than there would be in representing natural objects to people naturally blind. Should it be said, that only a state of darkness is intended, I answer, then the first thing necessary to render the motives suitable and sufficient, is to bring him out of darkness into marvellous light. There is no propriety nor utility in representing colours to a person enveloped in darkness.

2. There can be no suitableness, nor utility in representing to a person what he has not the ability to discern nor understand. Yet this is the case with sinners, because their understanding is darkened: "the natural man understandeth NOT the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned:" that is to say, he cannot know or understand those things of which he has no perception. He has no perception of spiritual things, therefore he cannot understand them ; and if he cannot understand them, how can he consider of them? and if he cannot consider of them, where is either the suitableness or propriety, of submitting to his consideration, motives and things of which he has no right perception? And if they can only benefit him by his receiving them, and he cannot receive them without understanding them, where can be their sufficiency?

3. If things are offered to me, and I have not the ABILITY to receive them, where will be their suitableness or sufficiency. But sinners have no ability to receive spiritual things by performing the conditions. Because, 1. No man can perform spiritual things until he is a spiritual person. 2. No man is spiritual until be is regenerated. Faith and repentance are spiritual exercises arising from a gracious disposition which God has freely bestowed. " By grace," says Paul, " are ye saved, through faith." What is faith? The instrument of perception and appropriation. From whence does it arise? Is it our own natural production? No, it is "not of ourselves." Who then, and how come we to possess it? "It is the GIFT of God, and not of works; not of our own production, lest any man should boast. But how is this proved? "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." The drift of this part of Paul's argument is to show, that no good works, that is, no spiritual works can precede a new principle or state of grace. That faith as a principle cannot be produced by us, because we are not workmen but the workmanship of God. Now this proves, 1. That unregenerate men have no faith. 2. That they cannot produce it. 3. That therefore they cannot exercise it. 4. That as such they cannot believe and repent. 5. That therefore offers of grace, and tenders of salvation, can be of no use to carnal people-' neither suitable nor sufficient.' Nothing can be clearer than these deductions, and nothing can operate more directly against the sentiment of offered grace.

It is of no use for Mr. H. to say, there is only a moral injury sustained by the fall, and that man is able to do all that God requires. I ask the Rev. gentleman, what was the character of Paul's inability-he could not do the things that he would. Will Mr. H. say, it was a moral inability when he was the subject of a new creature ? He had the will, and therefore could not lack the principle nor disposition. To say, he might if he would is a flat contradiction to the apostle. And according to Mr. H.'s notion, it could not be a natural inability, ,because I should imagine Paul had an I apparatus, as much adapted to moral objects as Mr. H. But something was the matter with the-apostle's apparatus, for it seems he could not make it act. If it betrayed no symptoms of structural injury, it certainly did of functional disease. He could not do as he pleased with it at all events. The obvious meaning is this, the new creature, with which the apostle identified himself, sometimes struggled with a power and weight which baffled its utmost exertions : and this at once overthrows the notion of man's inability consisting only in the will. To say, that a man could if he would, when he cannot have the will, is like saying, he could if he could, which is arguing in a circle. I wonder that Mr. H. and those of whom he seem to be the organ, should cleave with such tenacity to identical propositions.

A sinner may have his defects pointed out, his true character represented, the ground of his condemnation clearly explained, his real situation proved, the nature and method of salvation submitted to his notice, and urged upon his attention ; but whenever he is exhorted to spiritual acts, that very moment his imbecility is not only questioned but denied, or the exhortation be characterized as insignificant and absurd. For if a proposal or overture is made to all mankind in the gospel, it must be an offer of advantage or benefit; and if so, it must be made upon those grounds by which it is attainable; because, a proposal, however good in itself, can offer no advantage to me if I am not prepared to meet its conditions.

Now these conditions must be either naturally moral or evangelically spiritual, or neither of them, or else both of them united. The first supposition is overthrown by a- long train of facts and reasoning; the second, is destroyed by its own attributes; the third, is a nameless nothing; and the fourth, as untenable as its complexity would be un-definable. We must deny that spiritual mercies are offered upon conditions which are not of a spiritual character, because that would be disregarding the relation, order, character, and fitness of things; but we cannot suppose that the Divine Being can ever do that. And we must be fully convinced that if they are made on any other conditions than what can be accomplished by the exercise of a natural disposition, they can be of no avail, because the conditions can never be fulfilled. To deny this, is to equalize and confound nature and grace, and to pour contempt on the nature and fitness of things. If it is affirmed, that natural men can perform spiritual things, it will be found necessary to deny facts, ridicule observation, despise experience, and pervert the word of God. Reason must be insulted, the understanding abused, and feebleness, fickleness and folly, must occupy the place of strength, stability, and sapiency in the divine economy. And according to my conception, men must do one of these things-submit to the consequences - have recourse to theological, finesse, or abandon the sentiments of offered grace. Now to my mind the consequences are insufferable, the subterfuge is despicable, therefore the last must be advisable; I may add it is lawful, and perhaps honourable.

The following arguments are thought to be conclusive.

1. If colours are not sufficient to produce a new state of feeling, when exhibited before blind people, than offers of grace are insufficient to produce spiritual feeling; the reason is, because the latter are addressed to the understanding, and the understanding is blinded. A mere natural man can no more perceive spiritual things, than a blind man can perceive natural things. But colours are not sufficient to produce a new state of feeling when exhibited before blind people, therefore offers of grace are not sufficient to produce spiritual feeling in natural men.

2. If representing by language invaluable advantages to people, who had not the sense of hearing, would not be suited to alter their disposition or course of living, offers of grace cannot be suited to produce a saving change in carnal men, because they are deaf. Isa,.xlii. 18. xliii. 8. To hear things that are morally good and profitable, they have but little inclination, for their ears are heavy, but to hear things a are spiritual an divine, they have no capacity. But in the first case the motives addressed by language would be unsuitable and insufficient, and by the rule of comparison they Must be so in the last.

3. If exhortations, exhibitions, illustrations, denunciations, &c. would be insufficient to make a dumb man speak, then offers of grace are insufficient to answer the ends proposed, because sinners are told they must ask for the offers, they must pray, repent, and reform. Now sinners cannot speak spiritually, and to give spiritual language is the work of God, and represented as a new covenant gift. Zeph. iii. 9, 10. 11 The-1 will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my supplants. even the daughter of my dispersed shall bring my offering." See also Isa. xix. 18. Now, as in the former case the motives would be insufficient and unsuitable, so in-the latter case. A dumb person must have his mouth opened before he can speak, and we know it is God's work to open the mouth of the dumb, as much as iris to open the ears of the deaf, or the eyes of the blind.

4. If natural objects are not suited, nor are sufficient to act upon dead people, then offers of grace are not suited nor sufficient to act upon carnal men in a spiritual manner. The reason is, they are dead in trespasses and sins ; they have no more consciousness of spiritual things than dead people. Eph. ii. 1. But in the case supposed, the motives would be useless and insufficient, and as the comparison is scriptural and complete, offers and tenders of mercy, must, by fair consequence, be so too.

5. If offering money, friends, and estates, would be insufficient to raise a person from the dead, then offers of grace must he insufficient to raise a person out of his grave of sin and death ; the reason is, because in both cases it requires the infusion of life, which is an act of divine power. But in the first instance, the motives addressed would be unsuitable and insufficient, and therefore I imagine they must in the second.

6. If food placed before the dead is not suited to the condition of the dead, neither are offers of grace suited to the condition of un-quickened persons; because in both cases there is an absence of sensibility; natural in the one, and spiritual in the other. But food is not suited to the dead, therefore offers of grace are not suited to carnal men.

We are in the habit of smiling at the custom of heathen nations, where the practice of placing food upon the tombs of the dead is pursued with unremitting diligence and religious fervour ; but however we may admire the feelings which accompany the rite, we know their motives are founded in ignorance, and therefore carefully abstain from such practice ourselves. Now why should we laugh at them if we act quite as ridiculous ourselves ? And this must be the case, if sinners are in the exact situation as represented by scripture, and we are determined to place before them spiritual provision ; and further, not contented with merely placing it before them, we actually offer it to them, exhort them to partake of it, and even threaten them if they do not. Perhaps it will be said, E the parallel will not agree in every respect.' Very likely not; similitude's seldom run on all fours. But though there may not be a circumstantial agreement in the case before us, there is, nevertheless, a substantial one. For 1. a sinner is as destitute of spiritual life, as a dead body is of animal life. 2. His moral powers are buried in trespasses and sins, like a dead body in the earth. 3. He is as unconscious of spiritual things as a dead man is of natural things. 4. A dead person cannot use the members of his body, although death may not have produced any structural mischief. Neither can a sinner exercise his moral powers in a spiritual manner, although the absence of moral feeling may have produced no structural mischief. 5. Omnipotent power is necessary to quicken a dead body, and a dead sinner. A sinner is to all intents and purposes senseless, helpless, thoughtless, and motionless in a spiritual point of view, and is therefore fitly represented by the emblem of death. I hope it will not be thought that the apostle has been so hasty and inhuman, as to bury mankind before they are dead. If he has, need we be surprised that there are so many resurrection-men, and that they should be so anxious to extract people from their graves who have been buried alive? Could I think the apostle had been so incautious or so mistaken, I would certainly make an effort to get the necessary qualifications for myself. But I must say that I entertain no such ideas at present, and this much I can affirm, that it was not my case. I was dead enough, and buried deep enough, and bound fast enough, to have remained for ever in a state of unconsciousness, had it not have been for the quickening and delivering voice of him who said,' Lazarus, come forth loose him and let him go.'

I here anticipate an objection; it is this, the prophet was commanded to prophecy among the dry bones, and there is no more unfitness in preaching to dead sinners than there was in prophesying to the dry bones. This may be thought ingenious, but the objection vanishes, when it is recollected, 1. That their death was not of a moral but political character, and that the reanimation of the bones was an emblem of their assuming a political appearance. 2. There is a great difference between prophesying of future prosperity to people who are rational, and capable of understanding natural things, and in offering salvation to those who have no capacity. 3. The prophet only declared facts to be credited, and not offered things to be received. 4. The means by which political life was infused, was not by offers, but by his spirit. We have no account of Ezekiel's. offering to quicken them provided they would get up and perform certain conditions before they were quickened, which should have been the case to have made it tell in favour of offered grace; but there is much to illustrate the preaching of sovereign grace; for 1. He prophesied to the dead; the gospel is preached to men who are dead in trespasses and sins. 2. His prophecy was a statement of what God had said, so is the gospel. 3. His prophecy contained no offers that I can find, neither does the gospel. 4. He was commanded to prophecy, but not to offer the matter of his prophecy. Ministers are commanded to preach the gospel, but they are no where commanded to offer the blessings of the gospel 5. Prophesying was honoured as the means of restoration, and the gospel is honoured as the means of salvation. Hence the gospel is said to be preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. God will always honour his own commands, because they are founded in wisdom, given in authority, preserved by his care, and accomplished by his agency. But when, and where does God honour offers of mercy? It does not seem clear to me, that God has ever called any person by such means. That many people have been called savingly, where salvation is tendered to all conditionally, I have no doubt; but that any one ever fulfilled the conditions is erroneous to believe, and that they have ever been the means of conveying spiritual life to the dead, is extremely questionable, and in my thoughts excessively improbable. The advocates for offered grace will probably ridicule this idea, and talk about presenting me with an innumerable multitude of cases to subvert it. We are often taken with numbers, but let the case be thoroughly sifted, and if there are any that will stand the test, they will resemble the proud Assyrian's army, be so few, that a child may write them. Among the ranks of Fullerites and Wesleyans whom I have heard mention the loving kindness of the Lord in calling them by his grace, I have never heard one of them, even so much as hint about their being called by offers of grace, and much more affirm that to be the case.

I have no doubt but what cases might be got up, in order to prove the usefulness of offered grace in regeneration; and I have no doubt but there night be found some persons who would come forward in a voluntary manner to strengthen the evidence, but then the question is, could they offer sufficient evidence to be safely relied on ? It will perhaps be said, I require an unnecessary quantum of evidence, and that I should admit the same cases with less evidence on other points towards which I might be favourably inclined. To this I reply, I require no more evidence than what any fair examiner has a right to claim. I should require evidence both internal and external in proof of the person's being a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then I should require a statement of the circumstances connected with the commencement of such a blessed work. And if I can find a single instance, in which it can be proved-fairly and indisputably proved, that a person has been regenerated by performing faith and repentance, or while in the act of exercising them, I will immediately admit that salvation stands upon different ground than what I have hitherto imagined, and that it may possibly be administered by general offers and invitations. ' But it may be the means of awakening or rousing their minds to seek after salvation.' But so may other things, which in themselves are very unlawful; and if every thing ought to be used for the conversion of God's people which in any instance have been the means of leading to sober reflection, iniquity would be established by a law. And then men ought to swear, lie, cheat, rob, defraud, &c. because these are circumstances that have led to men's conversion. And if so, good men who use every measure to convert and regenerate their neighbour or the heathen, ought to use them too. What a topic for speculation! but no sober minded men would urge the use of such measures, nor have they any ground to plead for offers of grace as being useful to bring the family out of darkness into marvellous light. The objections I have been examining seem to cut a different way than could have been designed, by those who have had the temerity to use them.