37.
-- the logic of the new Evangelists will convince him that it is a contradiction in terms even to 'suppose' himself 'capable of doing any thing' to help 'or bringing any thing to recommend himself to the Divine favour'.
Now, suppose the wisdom of these endless attacks on an old abstruse metaphysical notion to be allowed, yet why in the name of common candour does not the Barrister ring the same 'tocsin' against his friend Dr.
Priestley's scheme of Necessity;--or against his idolized Paley, who explained the will as a sensation, produced by the action of the intellect on the muscles, and the intellect itself as a catenation of ideas, and ideas as configurations of the organized brain?
Would not every syllable apply, yea, and more strongly, more indisputably?
And would his fellow-sectaries thank him, or admit the consequences?
Or has any late Socinian divine discovered, that Do as ye would be done unto, is an interpolated precept?
Ib.p.

39.
"Even repentance and faith," (says Dr.Hawker,) "those most essential qualifications of the mind, for the participation and enjoyment of the blessings of the Gospel, (and which all real disciples of the Lord Jesus cannot but possess,) are 'never supposed as a condition which the sinner performs to entitle him to mercy', but merely as evidences that he is brought and has obtained mercy.

'They cannot be the conditions' of obtaining salvation." Ought not this single quotation to have satisfied the Barrister, that no practical difference is deducible from these doctrines?
"Essential qualifications," says the Methodist:--"terms and conditions," says the spiritual higgler.

But if a man begins to reflect on his past life, is he to withstand the inclination?
God forbid! exclaim both.

If he feels a commencing shame and sorrow, is he to check the feeling?
God forbid! cry both in one breath! But should not remembrancers be thrown in the way of sinners, and the voice of warning sound through every street and every wilderness?
Doubtless, quoth the Rationalist.