no violence offered to the will of that man; he acted free.

Q. 21. Can you show me any text of Scripture in which God decrees that a man should commit sin?

A. Yes, sir. In Acts ii. 23, Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain. Again, Acts iv. 27, For a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou bast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Do you wish for

another?

Q. 22. Which of the two were innocent, God or Herod ?

A. Neither Herod, Pontius Pilate, nor the Jews had any such command given them; they acted according to the impulse of their own wicked hearts.

[Turn to the 1st book of Samuel, 23d chap. -read from the 9th to the 14th verse.]

Q. 23. Now, sir, did David escape from the foreknowledge and decree of God?

A. Not at all.

Q. 24. Did what God declared then come to pass? did Saul come down? was David delivered up? did the foreknowledge and decree go parallel ?*

* The Confession of Faith had just said, that God

A. Yes, sir: God decreed and told David that he should sit upon the throne of Israel. God knew that Saul would come down, provided David staid there, and that the men of Keilah would deliver him up.

Q. 25. Will Saul come down-the men of Keilah will deliver thee up-Where do the foreknowledge and decree go parallel?

A. This escape to the wilderness God knew before, or else he never could have promised David that he should sit upon the throne of Israel. And accordingly he ordained it; and the decree was not altered. He knew what would be the mind of Saul, and what would be the minds of the men of Keilah; and he told David, and David acted accordingly; and the promise that he should sit upon the throne of Israel was fulfilled. There was no violence offered to their wills; or the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away.

Q. 26. What is a contingency?

A. Walker says, it is the quality of being fortuitous, accidental possibility.

Q. 27. For what is the word contingency used?

"foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Therefore, what came to pass was the decree; not what was threatened. But seeing Mr. Kean had not observed this distinction, it was not worth while to correct him at that time. Many observed, and said, that his whole strength was exerted throughout, to make it appear that God had fold a lie.

A. It is a word used by men for a thing that may be casual. But God knows all things.

Q. 28. Can a thing be at the same time a contingency and a certainty ?

A. Yes, sir: with God, who knows all things, they are certainties; but with man, who does not know all things, they are contingencies, or uncertainties.

And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey, Exod. iii. 17.

Q. 29. How many men were included in this decree of God concerning Israel?

A. The promise of God was made to Abraham and his seed as a nation; and Joshua led them into the land of Canaan.

Q. 30. Was not the promise made to the el-ders ?

A. No, sir this promise was made to the seed of Abraham, the children of Israel, as a nation.

[The Moderators say, the two hours are expired.]

Note. That partof the two hours which I did not occupy with these answers, Mr. K. himself occupied in making introductions to his questions, which the clerks have not noticed.

It is well known to all who are acquainted with Methodist writers, or preachers, that they

are continually charging us with inconsistent and erroneous doctrines. This is generally done with a kind of affected modesty, by saying some hold, thus and in this manner, they will indirectly charge the error (which they name) upon that denomination among whom they are preaching, and endeavouring to overturn; when perhaps at the same time, there is no such error as they state in existence. If there be such momentous objections to our system as they frequently represent, we would ask the reader, why Mr. K. did not bring forward some of those great absurdities? In the space of two hours he had every opportunity that he could have desired, if he had not rather chosen to spend his time in preaching, because my answers were as short and plain as I could possibly make them. I endeavoured to be understood, and also was careful not to consume the time. I was willing to have him bring forward all his objections, and I should have been pleased to answer them in the hearing of the people. But he did not do it: he chose to spend his time in another way. Does it not therefore appear as though he thought, that if he brought forward those absurdities, which they are frequently stating that we hold to, I would immediately have told him, that we did not hold to those doctrines, as they represent them, or perhaps any one else? and that in a few words, I would have explained, what was the truth of them, in the presence of the people,

This would have (as he might think) an unfavourable effect upon the minds of the audience. Some of their honest people might stare, and say in their hearts," have we not heard our ministers say, or at least insinuate, that the Presbyterians hold to these things! and now we find it is not true! Or when they heard the truth set in its just light, they might have seen that it was truth, and said, can it be possible that our ministers make such misrepresentations, in order to deceive us !

Many of these formidable objections could have been set right in a few words, if Mr. K. had only put the questions. And I had much rather have been tried with the difficulties, than to have stood and heard his long introductions. But notwithstanding he had several of his brethren to stand behind him with their counsel, yet they did not choose to have these questions put to me. We apprehend that they knew the consequence it does not require much penetration to see through this scheme. But the truth is, that the greater part of the real difficulties in the Protestant* system of doctrine, Mr. K. did bring forward by way of questions; and the reader has seen the answers. Some objections, which he has omitted, will be brought forward hereafter.

We call it Protestant, because it was the doctrine of the reformers, which they maintained in opposition to the freewill scheme; and is now held by a great many denominations.