fice, then applied to the conscience when we believe, as you yourself have often asserted. But whatever punishment he redeems us from, that punishment supposes sin to precede; which must exist first, before there is any possibility of its being either punished or pardoned.

Ant. You have a strange way of talking. You say, "We are forgiven for the sake of the blood of Christ." (Ib. p. 5.)

Friend. And do not you?

Ant.-No; I say, "We have forgiveness in his blood, and not merely for the sake of it."

Friend. You are perfectly welcome so to say.

Ant.-Well, enough of this. Let me ask you another question. Do you affirm that salvation is "conditional?" (Ib.)

66

Friend. I affirm, " He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." And can you or any other deny this? If not, why do you fight about a word? especially after I have told you, "Find me a better, and I will lay this aside."

Ant. "Then this faith leaves you just in the same state it found you; that is, still having the condition to perform." (lb. p. 5.)

Friend. Not so; for faith itself is that condition.

Ant.-Nay, "faith is only necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation; not to procure it by way of condition." (Ib.)

Friend.-Enough, enough. You grant all that I desire. If you allow that "faith is necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation,” this is the whole of what I mean by terming it a condition. A procuring or meritorious cause is quite another thing.

Ant.-But you say that "faith is not true faith, unless it be furnished with love." (Ib. p. 6.)

Friend.-Furnished with love! Where did you pick up that awkward phrase? I never used it in my life. But I say, you have not true faith, unless your faith "worketh by love;" and that though "I have all faith, so that I could even remove mountains, yet if I have no love I am nothing."

Ant.-Will you answer me one question more? Is not a believer free from the law?

Friend. He is free from the Jewish ceremonial law; that is, he does not, and need not, observe it. And he is free from the curse of the moral law; but he is not free from observing it. He still walks according to this rule, and so much the more, because God has written it in his heart.

Ant. But St. Paul says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Ib. p. 8.)

Friend. He is so. He put an end to the Mosaic dispensation, and established a better covenant, in virtue whereof "faith is counted for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Ant.-But still "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse," (Gal. iii, 10,) are they not?

Friend. They are; as many as still "seek to be justified by the works of the law;" that is, by any works antecedent to, or independent on, faith in Christ.

Ant." But does not the Apostle say farther, Ye are become dead to the law?' Rom. vii, 4." (Ib.)

Friend. You are so, as to its condemning power, if you truly believe in Christ. For "there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." But not as to its directing power; for you "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." You "love him and keep his commandments." Ant. That is not all. I maintain, "a believer is entirely free from

the law." (Ib.)

Friend. By what scripture do you prove that?

Ant.-By Gal. iv, 4, 5: "God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law."

Friend. The plain meaning of this I mentioned before: "God sent forth his Son, made under the law,' (the Jewish dispensation,) to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;' might' serve God without fear, in righteousness and holiness,' with a free, loving, child-like spirit." (First Dialogue, p. 70.)

Ant. So you say, "Christ was made only under the Jewish dispensation, to redeem the Jews from that dispensation." (Cudworth's Dialogue, pp. 8, 9.)

Friend.-I do not say so. By inserting "only" you quite pervert my words. You cannot deny, that Christ "was made under the Jewish dispensation." But I never affirmed, He was "made under it only to redeem the Jews from that dispensation."

Ant.-Was he made "under the moral law" at all?

Friend. No doubt he was. For the Jewish dispensation included the moral, as well as ceremonial, law.

Ant. Then the case is plain.

"If he was under the moral law, we

are redeemed from the moral law." (Ib.)

Friend. That does not follow. "He redeemed them that were under” this, as well as the ceremonial, “law." But from what did he redeem them? Not "from the law;" but "from guilt, and sin, and hell." In other words, He redeemed them from the "condemnation of this law," not from "obedience to it." In this respect they are still," not without law to God, but under the law to Christ," 1 Cor. ix, 21.

Ant. Under the law to Christ!' No. The Greek word is evvoμos Xgis, in a law to Christ; that is, the law of love and liberty." (Ib.) Friend.-Very true. This is the exact thing I mean. You have spoken the very thought of my heart.

Ant. It may be so. But "a believer is free from the law of commandments," call it moral, or what you please.

Friend. Do you mean only, that he obeys the law of Christ, by free choice, and not by constraint? that he keeps the commandments of God, out of love, not fear? If so, you may triumph without an opponent. But if you mean, he is free from obeying that law, then your liberty is a liberty to disobey God.

Ant.-God forbid. It is "a liberty to walk in the Spirit, and not fulfil the lust (or desire) of the flesh." (Ib. p. 8.)

--

Friend. Why this is the thing I am contending for. The very thing I daily assert is this, that Christian liberty is a liberty to obey God, and not to commit sin.

Ant. But how do you understand those words of St. Paul, that Christ 'blotted out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way?" Col. ii, 14

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 yeuntai. 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.

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 believing 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.

3. "

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." By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sm." 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, meekness, 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. For you seem to mean what you do not.

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.

66

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 committeth iniquity, and dieth in them;" (here is temporal death;) "for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die." (Here is death eternal.)