A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

It may not be improper here to take Notice of something said by an Author, that has lately made a mighty Noise in America. A necessary Holiness (says He^*) is no Holiness.— Adam could not be originally created in Righteousness and true Holiness, because He must choose to be righteous, before He could be righteous. And therefore He must exist, He must be created, yea He must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. There is much more to the same Effect in that Place, and also in P. 437, 438, 439, 440. If these Things are so, it will certainly follow, that the first choosing to be righteous is no righteous Choice; there is no Righteousness or Holiness in it; because no choosing to be righteous goes before it. For He plainly speaks of choosing to be righteous, as what must go before Righteousness: And that which follows the Choice, being the Effect of the Choice, can't be Righteousness or Holiness: For an Effect is a Thing necessary, and can't prevent the Influence or Efficacy of it's Cause; and therefore is unavoidably dependent upon the Cause: And He says, A necessary Holiness is no Holiness. So that neither can a Choice of Righteousness be Righteousness or ⟨p. 197⟩Holiness, nor can any Thing that is consequent on that Choice▪ and the Effect of it, be Righteousness or Holiness; nor can any Thing that is without Choice, be Righteousness or Holiness. So that by his Scheme, all Righteousness and Holiness is at once shut out of the World, and no Door left open, by which it can ever possibly enter into the World.

It may not be improper here to take Notice of something said by an Author, that has lately made a mighty Noise in America. A necessary Holiness (says He^*) is no Holiness.— Adam could not be originally created in Righteousness and true Holiness, because He must chuse to be righteous, before He could be righteous. And therefore He must exist, He must be created, yea He must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. There is much more to the same Effect in that Place, and also in P. 437, 438, 439, 440. If these Things are so, it will certainly follow, that the first chusing to be righteous is no righteous Choice; there is no Righteousness or Holiness in it; because no chusing to be righteous goes before it. For He plainly speaks of chusing to be righteous, as what must go before Righteousness: And that which follows the Choice, being the Effect of the Choice, can't be Righteousness or Holiness: For an Effect is a Thing necessary, and can't prevent the Influence or Efficacy of it's Cause; and therefore is unavoidably dependent upon the Cause: And He says, A necessary Holiness is no Holiness. So that neither can a Choice of Righteousness be Righteousness or