Friend.--I understand them of the Jewish ordinances; as it is plain St. Paul himself did, by the inference he immediately draws: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink," (the ordinances touching these being now "taken out of the way,") "or in respect of a holy-day," (once observed,) "or of the new moon, or of the" (Jewish) "Sabbaths," verse 16.

Ant.--But how could the "hand writing" of these "ordinances" be said to be "against us," or to be "contrary to us?"

Friend.--I will not insist on the criticism of those who render the words "over against us," as alluding to that "hand writing on the wall," which appeared "over against King Belshazzar." The words of St. Peter suffice, which will bear no dispute, who, speaking of these same ordinances, calls them "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," Acts xv, 5, 10.

Ant. You must then understand those words of our Lord, of the moral law alone: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled," Matt. v, 17, 18. But I say, our Lord has fulfilled every jot and tittle of this Law too.

Friend.--I grant he has. But do you infer from thence, "therefore he has destroyed the Law?" Our Lord's arguing is the very reverse of yours. He mentions his coming to " fulfil the Law," as an evident proof that he did not come, to "destroy" or "take it away."

But suppose you could get over the former verse, what can you do with the following?" Verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till heaven and earth pass;" or, which comes to the same thing, "till all be fulfilled." The former evasion will do you no service with regard to this clause. For the word "all" in this does not refer to the Law, but to heaven and earth and “all things" therein: the original sentence running thus: Ews av wavla yvntai. Nor indeed is the word yevra well rendered, by the ambiguous word "fulfilled," which would easily induce an English reader to suppose it was the same word that was rendered so just before; it should rather be translated accomplished, finished, or done; as they will be in the great and terrible day of the Lord, when the "earth and the heaven shall flee from his face, and there shall be no place found for them."

Ant. But why did you say, my account of sanctification was crude and indigested? (First Dialogue, p. 73.)

Friend. Let me hear it again. If it be better digested than it was, I shall rejoice.

66

Ant. Our minds are either defiled and impure, or pure and holy The question is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one? You say, By love, meekness, gentleness.' I say, By believ ing in Christ. By this, my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin. And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, &c. It is therefore absurd to say, We are made good by goodness, meek by meekness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated so from these fruits of the Spirit." (Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 10.)

Friend. You have mended the matter a little, and not much...

For 1. The question," say you, "is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one?" Nothing less. The present question between you and me is this, and no other, Has a believer any goodness in him at all? any love, meekness, or gentleness? 2. "You say, An impure mind is made good by goodness, &c. I say, By believing in Christ." This is mere playing upon words. If the question stood thus," Which way is an evil mind made good?" you are conscious I should make the very same reply," By believing in Jesus Christ." 3. " By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin." Here you run away from the question, notwithstanding that express caution, "Observe we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification." (First Dialogue, p. 74.) 4. “And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meckness, gentleness," &c. You here give up the cause. You grant all I desire, viz. that "there are these dispositions in all believers." It avails nothing therefore to add," But we are not made good by goodness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated good or gentle from these fruits of the Spirit;" since a believer can neither be made nor denominated so, without having goodness or gentleness in him.

Ant. Then how dare you affirm that a believer in Christ "is not really holy!"

Friend. You have forgotten yourself. I affirm that he is. If you affirm so too, our dispute is at an end. For if he is really holy, then he is inwardly or inherently holy. And if you grant this you may express it as you please. I have no leisure for strife of werds.

Ant. But why will not you cut off all occasion of such strife, by speaking as I do?

Friend. I cannot in conscience speak in the way that you do; and that for several plain reasons: (even setting aside that main consideration, whether the things you speak be right or wrong :)

1. Because it is a confused way of speaking; so that unless a man has both a clear apprehension, and a large measure of patience, he will hardly find out any consistent meaning in what you say.

2. Because it is an insincere way of speaking. mean what you do not.

For you seem to

3. Because it is an unscriptural way of speaking: The Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament speaking, frequently and expressly, both of holiness, of good works, of the law and the commandments of God, as expressly and frequently to the full, as of believing in Jesus Christ.

4. Because by experience I find, it is a dangerous way of speaking, and that, both to the speaker and to the hearers: to the speaker, as it has a peculiar tendency to puff him up, to engender pride; to make him exalt himself, (under pretence of exalting the grace of God,) and despise others: to the hearers, as it keeps many who are before our eyes from ever awaking out of the sleep of death; as it throws others again into that fatal slumber, who were just beginning to awake; as it stops many in the midst of their Christian course, and turns others clear out of the way; yea, and plunges not a few into all the wretchedness of unclean living. In consideration of this, I the more earnestly desire, when I speak on this head in particular, to "speak as the oracles of God;" to express

Scriptural sense in Scriptural words; in every phrase I use, to keep as close as I can to "the law and the testimony;" being convinced there are no words so fit to express the deep things of God, as those which "holy men of old spake" when "they were moved by the Spirit of God" LONDON, August 24, 1745.

SERIOUS THOUGHTS

UPON

THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.

1. MANY large volumes have been already published on this important subject. But the very length of them makes them hard to be understood, or even purchased, by common readers. A short, plain treatise on this head is what serious men have long desired, and what is here offered to those whom God has endowed with love and meekness of wisdom.

2. By the saints, I understand, those who are holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself; those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church; those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches;" those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant; those to whom all or any of these characters belong, I mean by the term saints.

3. Can any of these fall away? By falling away, we mean, not barely falling into sin. This, it is granted, they may. But can they fall totally? Can any of these so fall from God as to perish everlastingly?

4. I am sensible either side of this question is attended with great difficulties; such as reason alone could never remove. Therefore, "to the law and to the testimony." Let the living oracles decide: and if these speak for us, we neither seek nor want farther witness.

5. On this authority, I believe a saint may fall away; that one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

I. For thus saith the Lord: "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die," Ezek. xviii, 24.

That this is to be understood of eternal death appears from the twentysixth verse: "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and commi teth iniquity, and dieth in them;" (here is temporal death;) "for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die." (Here is death eternal.)

.

It appears farther from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to prove," The soul that sinneth, it shall die," verse 4.

If you say, "The soul here means the body," I answer, That will die whether you sin or no.

66

6. Again, thus saith the Lord: "When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness," (yea, or to that promise as absolute and unconditional,) " and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for the iniquity that he hath committed shall he die," xxxiii, 13.

Again: "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and com mitteth iniquity, he shall even die thereby," verse 18.

Therefore, one who is holy and righteous in the judgment of God himself may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly.

7. But how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere: 'If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments,-I will visit their offences with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. 1 have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not fail David,'" Ps. lxxxix, 30-35. ' I answer, There is no manner of inconsistency between one declaration and the other. The Prophet declares the just judgment of Gɔd against every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his truth. "I have found," saith he, "David, my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. My hand shall hold him fast, and my arm shall strengthen him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven," verses 20, 21, 29. It follows: "But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judg ments;-nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break. I will not fail David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me," verse 30, &c.

May not every man see, that the covenant here spoken of relates wholly to David and his seed or children? Where then is the inconsistency between the most absolute promise made to a particular family, and that solemn account which God has here given of his way of dealing with all mankind?

Besides, the very covenant mentioned in these words is not absolute, but conditional. The condition of repentance in case of forsaking God's law was implied, though not expressed; and so strongly implied, that, this condition failing, not being performed, God did also fail David. He did "alter the thing that had gone out of his lips," and yet without any impeachment of his truth. He "abhorred and forsook his anointed," verse 38, the seed of David, whose throne, if they had repented, should have been "as the days of heaven." He did "break the covenant of his servant, and cast his crown to the ground," verse 39. So vainly are these words of the Psalmist brought to contradict the plain, full testimony of the Prophet!

8. Nor is there any contradiction between this testimony of God by Ezekiel, and those words which he spake by Jeremiah : “I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving kindness have I

drawn thee." For do these words assert, that no righteous man ever turns from his righteousness? No such thing. They do not touch the question, but simply declare God's love to the Jewish Church. To see this in the clearest light, you need only read over the whole sentence: "At the same time, saith the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I caused him to rest. The Lord hath appeared of old unto me," saith the Prophet, speaking in the person of Israel," saying, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: Therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel,” xxxi, 1–4.

Suffer me here to observe, once for all, a fallacy which is constantly used by almost all writers on this point. They perpetually beg the question, by applying to particular persons assertions, or prophecies, which relate only to the Church in general; and some of them only to the Jewish Church and nation, as distinguished from all other people.

If you say, "But it was particularly revealed to me, that God had loved me with an everlasting love;" I answer, Suppose it was, (which might bear a dispute,) it proves no more, at the most, than that you in particular shall persevere; but does not affect the general question, whether others shall, or shall not.

9. Secondly. One who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the inspired Apostle, "War a good warfare; holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck," 1 Tim. i, 18, 19.

Observe, (1.) These men (such as Hymeneus and Alexander), had once the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; which they once had, or they could not have "put it away."

Observe, (2.) They "made shipwreck" of the faith, which necessarily implies the total and final loss of it. For a vessel once wrecked can never be recovered. It is totally and finally lost.

And the Apostle himself, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, mentions one of these two as irrecoverably lost. "Alexander," says he, "did me much evil: The Lord shall reward him according to his works,” 2 Tim. iv, 14. Therefore one who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

10. "But how can this be reconciled with the words of our Lord, 'He that believeth shall be saved?'"

Do you think these words mean, "he that believes" at this moment "shall" certainly and inevitably "be saved?"

If this interpretation be good, then, by all the rules of speech, the other part of the sentence must mean, "He" that does "not believe" at this moment," shall" certainly and inevitably "be damned."

66

Therefore that interpretation cannot be good. The plain meaning then of the whole sentence is, "He that believeth," if he continue in faith, “shall be saved; he that believeth not," if he continue in unbelief, "shall be damned."