to him, with a request that he would favor her with an answer to them. He wrote her the following letter.

MY DEAR NIECE, -I have read Mr. S.'s arguments against unconditional submission, which appear to me more plausible than conclusive. Submission is as well understood, I believe, as resignation; and either term properly signifies a willingness to suffer any evil which God pleases to inflict. This willingness, however, does not imply any love to evil, but only love to God who inflicts it. Love to God is always implied in submission, which can flow from no other source. None but a regenerate person, or if you please, none but a christian, ever exercises submission to God under any evil which God inflicts, whether small or great. Indeed, the same spirit of benevolence which will dispose a person to submit to God under the least evil, will dispose him to submit to God under the greatest; because God appears as amiable in inflicting the greatest, as in inflicting the least evil. The difficulty, if there be any in this question, lies not in determining the nature or degree of submission, but in determining when any regenerate person or real christian ought to be willing that God should destroy him in a future state. To set this point in as clear a light as I can, I would observe,

1. That a person may be regenerated, and yet not know that he is so. Though regeneration consists in new affections, and he may know, in the time of it, that he does exercise new affections, yet he may not know that his new affections are holy affections; and consequently not know that he is the subject of a saving change, and a real child of God. He may be in this dark and doubtful state, for days, or weeks, or even for months, after his heart is renewed. This many a christian has declared when he made a public profession of religion. 2. A renewed person or real christian, who does not know that he is renewed, cannot know that he is entitled to eternal life, according to the promises of the gospel. Though it be true that he is entitled to eternal life, yet he sees no evidence of it so long as he sees no evidence of being a subject of saving grace. Therefore,

3. A regenerate person or real christian, in such a situation, must view himself as exposed to future misery. As he does not view himself as a believer, he must view himself to be an unbeliever, and actually deserving and exposed to the punishment of an unbeliever; or, in other words, he must suppose that God is as much disposed to punish him for ever as any other sinner.

4. While a regenerate person or real christian thus views himself under a sentence of condemnation, he certainly ought to be willing that God should execute that sentence of condemnation upon him. He certainly must be willing that God should do this, or else he is unwilling. But to be unwilling, is practically saying that God shall not reign. over him, or dispose of him as shall be most for his own glory. Now I ask Mr. S., or any other person, how a real subject of grace ought to feel in such a situation as this? You will say he ought to desire salvation. I say so too. But ought he to desire salvation absolutely,

or unconditionally, whether he be a subject of grace or not? He does not know that he is a subject of grace, or that he ever will be. And therefore, he does not know but God is morally obliged, according to the threatening of his law, and according to his eternal decree, to cast him off for ever. And should he, in this situation, stand and contend with his Maker, or cordially submit? I am now ready to meet the arguments or objections which you mention.

Objection 1.-None but real christians do exercise the virtue of true submission to God's will under afflictions, or in the prospect of them.

Answer. This is said, and meant, as an objection against those who advocate unconditional submission, and is really the substance of all Mr. S. has said to refute the doctrine he opposes; for all the absurdities he endeavors to point out, as arising from the doctrine, are supposed to arise from the character and condition of a real christian. But this is fighting against a man of straw, of his own make. The advocates of unconditional submission, who understand themselves, freely grant, that it is only the subjects of grace, or the real christian, that does exercise true submission. I know indeed that Mr. Hooker and Mr. Shepard maintained, that a sinner under awakening and conviction must be willing to be cast off for ever, in order to prepare him for regeneration or true conversion. This we acknowledge is an erroneous opinion; and no Hopkinsian that I am acquainted with adopts this opinion.

Objection 2.-If we suppose a person submissively resigned to future misery, we must suppose him, of course, to be a christian.

Answer.Freely and fully granted, as being nothing to the purpose. Objection 3.- We have, then, this incongruity presented. Here is a christian, resigned to future evil, which can by no possibility take place under the government of God. For God cannot, without a sacrifice of his veracity, permit a real christian to perish.

Answer. Very true; but what then? Though God cannot permit a real christian to perish, and though a real christian, who knows he is a real christian, ought not to be willing that God should violate his promise, and cast him off for ever; yet, it by no means follows, that a real christian, who does not know that he is a real christian, ought not to be willing that God should cast him off for ever, if his own glory requires him to do it. And if he be not a christian, as he supposes he is not, he cannot know but the glory of God will require him to cast him off for ever. His duty is precisely the same in his supposed situation as it would be if he were not a real christian.

Objection 4. It follows, then, as the evil in question is not, under the government of God, a possible one, that a supposed resignation to it is not, and cannot be true submission; for true submission is resignation to present evils, or to those which are certain in prospect. This, therefore, is imaginary submission. It costs but little, and is worth still less.

Answer. A real christian may exercise as real submission to a supposed evil, as to a real one. And if he does not exercise as real submission to a supposed evil, as to a real one, he is as guilty, as if

the supposed evil had been a real evil. When Joseph's brethren came to their father and made him believe that Joseph had been torn to pieces by wild beast, ought not Jacob to have been submissive to God under his supposed bereavement ? And was he not criminal in feeling, and saying as he did?-"It is my son's coat: an evil beast hath devoured him: Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted."-Though his son was not dead, yet he verily believed that he was dead, and that God had bereaved him of his darling. In this belief he was altogether inexcusable in refusing to submit to God, and to be comforted. And surely, if he had submitted to this supposed, or if you please, imaginary evil, it would have cost him much, and been worth all the gold of Ophir. The application is easy. A real christian, who believes he is not a real christian, ought to be willing to suffer that future punishment, which God might inflict upon him, if he were, and always should be an impenitent sinner.

Objection 5.-Imaginary submission can never be a real test of Christian character. Actual submission only is evidence of it. Indeed, no state of mind which depends upon the future, can ever be at present, evidence of a Christian temper. We appeal, and must appeal, to past experience, or present actual experience only, for a test of our religion. Submission, then, to a supposed misery that is future, is no evidence to us of religion, unless that misery is so certain that it becomes present. But in the case supposed, the misery is not only future but actually impossible.

Answer. Is it not a present evil, to expect and fear a future and eternal evil? Has it not been shown that a real christian, who does not know, nor think, that he is a real christian, has just ground to expect and fear a future and eternal evil? His fear is not imaginary, but real; and his submission ought not to be imaginary, but real. His case' exactly resembles Jacob's. He supposed his son was dead; and his supposition, though not founded in reality, was yet founded upon credible evidence, and such as carried full conviction to his mind, and laid him under moral obligation to be really and immediately submissive to the supposed will of God; yea, to the real will of God; for it was his revealed will that he should be submissive to him in the mournful situation in which he had really placed him. So it is the real will of God, that a real christian, who does not know nor believe that he is a real christian, should be at that time, whether before or after he has had a hope, willing that he should cast him off for ever, if his glory requires it, as he does not know but it may. I now ask whether unreserved submission to the divine disposal, is not directly calculated to remove the doubts of a doubting christian; and whether any thing else can remove his doubts? Submission in this case is the test, and the only infallible test to himself of his Christian character. If a doubting christian comes to be submissive to God whether he should save or destroy him, he then has an infallible evi

dence that he is a friend of God, and that God is his friend; which must remove his painful doubts.

Objection 6.There are other difficulties still, attending this speculation. A state of future misery, involves a state of future disobedience and rebellion against God. And we have already seen that submission can never be opposed to obedience. Submission to a state of future disobedience is absolute rebellion.

Answer. It is granted that present submission is inconsistent with present disobedience. No person in the actual exercise of submission to God, can, by that actual submission, disobey God. But how does it appear, that present submission to God is inconsistent with future disobedience to him? Does not a real christian, in the morning of life, desire that God would not take him away in the midst of his days, but allow him to live longer in this world? But does he not expect, that, if he should live to the common age of man, he shall be guilty of more or less disobedience to God in that period? Is he not, then, willing, at present, to disobey God in future? And is his present willingness to disobey God in future, when he has told him that he shall not be perfect in this life, present disobedience? It is real submission to a certain, expected evil, which he hates in its own nature. But if a christian may be submissive to God, in appointing him to disobedience in time, why may he not be submissive to God, in appointing him to disobedience in eternity? Supposing God had told Lucifer, the day before he disobeyed, I have determined that to-morrow you shall disobey. Ought not Lucifer to have said, from the heart, I submit: Not my will, but thine be done? And had he felt and said this, would his submission to future disobedience, have been present, actual disobedience? I leave it to Mr. S. to solve these cases of conscience, which I have mentioned.

Objection 7. But the question sometimes comes up in this form : If we could be assured, that it would be for the glory of God that we should be cast off, ought we not to acquiesce? And, in answer to this, I have simply to observe, that such an assurance is absolutely impossible. God cannot break his promises. God cannot change his character. It cannot be for his glory that those should be miserable for ever, who are submissive to his will. Of what use is it, then, to state and reason from cases that are impossible ones, and subversive of the whole nature and government of God, if they should occur? Much more, how can it be a test of Christian character, to conjecture how we should act and feel, or ought to act and feel, in cases that are actually impossible?

Answer. It is readily conceded, that a christian, who does not know nor believe that he is a christian, cannot be assured that it would be for the glory of God that he should be cast off; and it is asserted, on the other hand, that a christian, who does not know nor believe that he is a christian, cannot be assured that it would be for the glory of God that he should be saved. For God cannot break his promises, nor his purposes. The christian, who does not know that he is a christian, cannot know what God's purposes are respecting him; and

therefore, it is his present duty to be willing that He should execute his purposes, whether they are in his favor or against him. His present state of uncertainty requires him to exercise present submission, whether his future state should be either happy or miserable. And his present submission or opposition to God, in his present state of uncertainty, is a criterion, to determine whether he feels right or wrong at present; but not to determine whether he is a real christian or not. For though he may feel wrong in his present state of darkness, he may afterwards feel right, as Jacob did, after he had refused to submit and be comforted.

Objection 8. — It is again asked, Is it not the duty of those who are cast off, to submit to their condition? And if you will only view this question as it respects different considerations, it is very easy to answer it. As to that part of the future state of condemnation, which involves disobedience and rebellion, it is no duty to submit to this, but to become obedient and cease from rebellion. And in regard to actual misery, fallen spirits are bound to acknowledge the justice of God in it, and their full desert of it. But it is their duty to repent and reform, and, were it possible, to deliver themselves from misery, though we have reason to believe that they will never do this.

Answer. The spirits in prison are undoubtedly bound cordially to acknowledge the justice of God in punishing them for ever, and cordially to acknowledge the sovereignty of God in continuing them in a state of moral depravity for ever. And the cordial acknowledgment of both the justice and sovereignty of God towards them, I should call perfect submission to God, both as to their sinfulness and misery. Mr. S. concludes his arguments or objections against unconditional submission with the following general observations, which deserve some notice:

"On the whole it is a matter of regret, that this subject has been agitated in our churches. It is easy to perceive that much has been said upon it, without definite ideas of the nature of true submission; and much said against it with mistaken apprehensions of the design of those who advocate the affirmative. What is aimed at, I take to be these simple truths: The will of God is the rule of right, and creatures ought to submit to that will; the law of God is perfectly just, and we ought to approve of it, though it condemn our conduct; we ought to feel that we deserve to be cast off, and it is mere grace which delivers us from destruction. To these truths we all accede. Why not inculcate them then in this simple and intelligible form, and not endeavor to impress them by the statement of cases which are revolting to the feelings and impossible in the nature of things! Most of the disputants upon these subjects seem to me to have left submission undefined, and not to have distinguished between active obedience and suffering with resignation, or show how the one stood related to the other, or that the one can never interfere with the other.

Answer. Will not all those who are finally cast off at the last day, be constrained to accede, in their understandings and consciences, to these simple truths: "That the will of God is the rule of right, and