Schools, there is a grand error either in the former or the latter instance. 5. With regard to the former, how few are there of those that undertake the education of children, who understand the nature of Religion: who know what true Religion is! Some of them supposing it to be barely the doing no harm, the abstaining from outward sin; some, the using the means of grace, saying our prayers, reading good books, and the like: and others the having a train of right opinions, which is vulgarly called Faith. But all these, however common in the world, are gross and capital errors. Unless Religion be described as consisting in holy tempers, in the love of God and our neighbour, in humility, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, contentedness in every condition; to sum up all, in the image of God, in the mind that was in Christ: it is no wonder if these that are instructed therein are not better, but worse than other men. For they think they have religion, when indeed they have none at all, and so add pride to all their other vices. 6. But suppose those that educate them judge right, with regard to the nature of religion, they may still be mistaken with regard to the manner of instilling it into children. They may not have the spirit of government, to which some even good men are utter strangers. They may habitually lean to this or that extreme, of remissness or of severity. And if they either give children too much of their own will, or needlessly and churlishly restrain them; if they either use no punishment at all, or more than is necessary, the leaning either to one extreme or the other, may frustrate all their endeavours. In the latter case, it will not be strange, if religion stink in the nostrils of those that were so educated. They will naturally look upon it as an austere, melancholy thing; and if they think it necessary to salvation, they will esteem it a necessary evil, and so put it off as long as possible. 7. But does it follow, that we ought not to instil true religion into the minds of children as early as possible? Or rather that we should do it, with all diligence, from the very time that reason dawns? Laying line upon line, precept upon precept, as soon and as fast as they are able to bear it? By all means. Scripture, Reason, and Experience, jointly testify, that inasmuch as the corruption of nature is earlier than our instructions can be, we should take all pains and care, to counteract this corruption, as early as possible. The bias of nature is set the wrong way: education is designed to set it right. This, by the grace of God is to turn the bias from self-will, pride, anger, revenge, and the love of the world, to resignation, lowliness, meekness, and the love of God. And from the moment we perceive any of those evil roots springing up, it is our business immediately to check their growth, if we cannot yet root them out. As far as this can be done by mildness, softness, and gentleness, certainly it should be done. But sometimes these methods will not avail, and then we must correct with kind severity. For where tenderness will not remove the fault, He that spareth the rod, spoileth the child. To deny. this, is to give the lie to the God of truth, and to suppose we can govern better than he. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 8. In the name of God, then, and by the authority of his word, let all that have children, from the time they begin to speak or run alone, begin to train them up in the way wherein they should go: to counter-work the corruption of their nature with all possible assiduity: to do every thing in their power to cure self-will, pride, and every other wrong temper. Then let them be delivered to instructors (if such can be found) that will tread in the same steps; that will watch over them as immortal spirits, who are shortly to appear before God, and who have nothing to do in this world, but to prepare to meet him in the clouds, seeing they will be eternally happy, if they are ready; if not, eternally miserable. AN ANSWER TO MR. DODD. 1. YOU and I may the more easily bear with each rapid Writers, and, other, because we are both of us therefore, the more liable to mistake. shewing me any mistake I am in: being not so tenacious of my opinions now, as I was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed I am not fond of any opinion as such. I read the Bible with what attention I can, and regulate all my opinions thereby, to the best of my understanding. But F am always willing to receive more light; particularly with regard to any less common opinions, because the explaining and defending of them takes up much time, which I can ill spare from other employments. Whoever, therefore, will give me more light, with regard to Christian Perfection, will do me a singular favour. The opinion I have con cerning it at present, I espouse merely because I think it is scriptural. If, therefore, I am convinced it is not scrip-tural, I shall willingly relinquish it. 2. I have no particular fondness for the term. It seldom occurs either in my preaching or writings. It is my opponents who thrust it upon me continually, and ask me, What I mean by it? So did Bishop Gibson, till by his advice, I publickly declared, What I did not mean by it, and what I did. This I supposed might be best done in the form of a Sermon, having a text prefixed, wherein that term occurred. But that text is there used only as an occasion or introduction to the subject. I do not build any doctrine thereupon, nor undertake critically to explain it. 3. What is the meaning of the term Perfection, is another question; but that it is a Scriptural Term is unde niable. Therefore none ought to object to the use of the Term, whatever they may do to this or that Explication of it. I am very willing to consider whatever you have to object, to what is advanced under the first head of that Sermon. But I still think that Perfection is only another term for Holiness, or the image of God in man. God made man perfect, I think is just the same, as, he made him holy, or in his own image. And you are the very first person I ever read of or spoke with, who made any doubt of it. Now this Perfection does certainly admit of degrees. Therefore I readily allow the propriety of that distinction, Perfection of Kinds, and Perfection of Degrees. Nor do I remember one Writer, ancient or modern, who excepts against it. 4. In the Sermon of Salvation by Faith I say, " He that is born of God sinneth not," (a proposition explained at large in another Sermon) and every where either explicitly or virtually connected with, while he keepeth himself, "by any sinful Desire. Any unholy Desire he stifleth in the Birth." (Assuredly he does, while he keepeth himself.) "Nor doth he sin by infirmities. For his infirmities have no concurrence of his will, and without this they are not properly sins." Taking the words as they lie in connexion thus, (and taken otherwise they are not my words but yours,) I must still aver, they speak both my own experience, and that of many hundreds of the children of God whom I personally know. And all this, with abundantly more than this, is contained in that single expression, “The loving God with all our heart, and serving him with all our strength." Nor did I ever say or mean any more by Perfection, than thus loving and serving God. But I dare not say less than this. For it might be attended with worse consequences than you seem to be aware of. If there be a mistake, it is far more dangerous on the one side than on the other. If I set the mark too high, I drive men into needless fears; if you set it too low, you drive them into hell-fire. 5. We agree, that true "Christianity implies a destruction of the Kingdom of Sin, and a renewal of the soul in Righteousness: which even babes in Christ do in a measure experience; though not in so large a measure as young men and fathers?" But here we divide, I believe even babes in Christ (while they keep themselves) do not commit sin. By sin I mean outward sin; and the word commit I take, in its plain, literal meaning. And this I think is fully proved by all the texts cited Sermon III. from the sixth chapter to the Romans. Nor do I conceive there is any material difference between committing sin and continuing therein. I tell my neighbour here, "William, you are a child of the devil: for you commit sin: you were drunk yesterday." No, Sir, says the man; I do not live or continue in sin, (which Mr. Dodd says is the true meaning of the text,) I am not drunk continually, but only now and then, once in a fortnight, or once in a month." Now, Sir, how shall I deal with this man? Shall I tell him, he is in the way to heaven or hell? I think, he is in the high road to destruction, and that if I tell him otherwise, his blood will be upon my head. And all that you say, of living, continuing in, serving sin, as different from committing it, and of its not reigning, not having dominion over him, who still frequently commits it, is making so many loop-holes whereby any impenitent sinner may escape from all the terrors of the Lord. I dare not, therefore, give up the plain, literal meaning either of St. Paul's or St. Peter's words. 6. As to those of St. John (cited Sermon V.) I do not think you have proved they are not to be taken literally. In every single act of obedience, as well as in a continued course of it, ποιει δικαιοσυνην· And in either an act or a course of sin, le aapia. Therefore, that I may give no countenance to any kind or degree of sin, I shall interpret these words by those in the fifth chapter, and believe, He that is born of God (while he keepeth himself) sinneth not: doth not commit outward sin. 7. But "It is absolutely necessary, as you observe, to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred Penmen." It is so to add words explanatory of their |