I. Although this Article treats only of the conduct of Christians, when they fall into fins of some moment, yet this subject has been seen in such different lights, that one single series of historical facts will not be sufficient. I will however endea- vour to make ws answer our purpose; at least as principal :—the first, relating to those who do not allow the efficacy of repentance; the second, to those who reckon that true Believers are made to per- severe immoveably in their state of Grace, or Justi- fication, by the assistance of God, in consequence of the divine promise. Some have used the word Implacabiles for the former, and to that has been opposed the word Impeccabiles; whether for those

| E E 2 who

U : A : o - #, U v +: 4 vi) . ny * R [ T1 17 [ 4! ( a} ( on 0. #8 | f f

—

N FF

© © —

——

• <a x36: 0 a »E: 28 =

434 BOOK IV. 11.

who hold the notion, as well as for those who are supposed never to fin, may perhaps seem doubtful*. |

11. I begin, as the Article does, with those who deny the efficacy of Repentance ; that is, when the fins committed have been heinous. In most, or all ages, men of severe temipers have inclined to this. Clemens Romanus“ indeed speaks as a moderate man amongst us would do now: Welch- man has part of the passage to which I would refer, and he has some others from very ancient Christians : —But Montanus was severe enough :— He lived in the second Century, about 170, and therefore perhaps I might have passed him © over, had not the great Tertullian become, in old age, his disciple. In Tertullian’s Book de Pudicitia *, there are some very severe expressions ; mechia he calls immundabile vitium; he compares men who sin, to some discoloured fones (as I understand him) in an house infected with the Peftilence, which must be taken out and thrown intirely away : —he calls the repentance of a Christian a second re- pentance, the first having been before Baptism, and says, that a second repentance cannot be valid. And the Montanists in general “ did not allow the Church the power to forgive great sins after“ Baptism.” |

Novatus, or Novatianus, (I follow Lardner in giving these two names to one person) is placed in the year 251 : He was a Presbyter of Rome. He formed the Sect of Novatians, nolens (says Jerom)

Apostatas Forbes xi. . 10. Instruct.

Ep. ad Cor. Sect. 7. & 8, - Wake’s Translation, © According to what was said, Art, xv. Sect. 11.

© Lardner’s Heretics, Montanists, Sea. 8. — Works, Vol. ix. page 439.—See allo Vol. 2. page 376.

BOOK IV. 11. 435

Apostatas suscipere pœnitentes. He did not allow those, who had sacrificed during. the persecution, to be received again into the communion of the Church; but he did not deny that God might for- give them, though he thought the Church had no right to do so.— His severity, however, was not confined to this particular offence; the Novatians did not allow the Church to pardon mortal fins, or such as were particularly heinous, committed after Baptism. Some ancient * authors ule the expres- ton mortale peccatum, forme majora or graviora cri— mina. The Novatians were, on account of their strictness, called Kabagei, and Mundi, which Lard- ner translates*, Puritans. —Lord King“ mentions, from Augustin, tee kinds of repentance, the fi:it, before Baptism ; the second, what was called daily

repentance, which accompanied the daily confes- sion of sins in prayer; and the third, repentance for more heinous fins, such as were sometimes called mortal; the instances are murder, facrilege, &c.— The Novatians allowed the two first forts of repentance, but not the last,

Severity has probably varied, and appeared in different ways. Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari (capi- tal of Sardinia) thought, that, when Priests aposta- tized, and repented, they might be re-admitted into the Church, but only as Laymen.

To

f See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 3. page 216, &c.—See also a short expression or two, Appendix to Op. August. Ed. Benedict. Tom. 10. page 74, 75. : |

ZE Ibid. page 217.,—— We have before quoted Augustin’s ex- ’ pression, ©* numquid perfectè de pcenitentia tractatum est, ante- quam obsisterent Nowatiani ? Art. 1. Sect. 1v,= Pacian, A. D. 370, wrote against the Novatians, three Epistles, extant, in Bibl. Patrum; and separate.

On the Creed, page 382.

E E 3

436 BOOK IV. 111.

To this severity is ascribed the very late Baptism of the Emperor Constantine, and others“.

In what manner the Fathers of the fifth Cen- tury declared against the Novatian rigour, may be seen in Lord King’s History of the Apostles Creed ; under © Forgiveness of Sins.”

111. But for understanding our Article, I do not think that we need look out for variations ; we may content ourselves with those objects, which the compilers had chiefly in view; and these, I think, were the Anabapti//s.—Both the confession of Augsburgh* and our Homilies do refer to No- vatians expressly; but their aim was, probably, to strike the Anabaptists a stronger and safer blow, by introducing the ancient Heretics’. Sleidan, in his History of the Reformation, relates, that Philip Lantgrave of Hefle, in 1535, reckons up, to the Anabaptists, near or at Munster, their doctrines; amongst others, „their denying absolution to a sinner that relapseth.” And both our Reformatio Legum®, and our Homily © on Repentance imply, that some persons were troublesome in renewing Novatian doctrines at the lime when they were com- posed. These might be called Novatians, as some were opprobriously called Pelagians .

The Council of Trent seems not to have decreed much about Repentance after Baptism, of which

we

i Lardner’s Works, Vol. 4. p. 159.—The Donatists thought their {e& so perfect, that quitting them was quitting Christi- anity; fo they re-baptized : but of them more hereafter.

• Syntagma, page 55. Art. 11th. —Heylin Quinq. page 519. — Homily on Repentance, page 418. 8vo.

| Sort of Novatians, Strype’s Whitgift, Book 1.— In 1562 the Convocation in England was settled thus; © in the which. also is to be determined the truth of those things, which in this age, are called into Controversy.” See Strype’s Annals for that year; Chap. xxvii. p. 282,

m De Hzresibus, cap. g. n Page 418, octavo. Art. 1X. Sect. x11.

BOOK IV. 111. 437

we need take particular notice at present. — It insists on the necessity of the Sacrament of Pen- ance ; but that subject will occur under the twenty- fifth Article.-Some of the Reformers had held, that only want of Faith could throw a man out of a slate of Grace; that is, unmase him a Christian in the sight of God; one may fee what they meant ; that, as Faith is that, by which a man embraces? Christianity, only the loss of that principle can render that embracing null and void : The Roma- nists opposed to this the doctrine, that every mortal Sin throws a man out of a state of Grace; mean-

ing, probably, a state of Favour with God; that

{tate, which the Holy Spirit particularly maintains and cherishes: fo that a man under the guilt of a mortal sin, is not to be considered, according to the Romanists, as a person in full possession of the spiritual privileges of Christianity ; he has some- thing to recover. These two things are not di- rectly opposed to each other; but they might sound as if they were. It is an obvious effect of want of Faith, to run into the commission of heinous fins. |

Of the Church of England I have been led to say something, by speaking of the Anabapti/?s whom they opposed. And under the twelfth Articles, I mentioned, that the Necessary Doctrine divides good works of Christians, into works of righteous- nels, and works of Penitents: and, under the eleventh Article, that it speaks of Justification as variable; as capable of being increased, diminished, lost for a time, restored” —In the Necessary Doc- trine, several expressions occur to our purpole; but I will read only that part concerning Good workes, which is about acts of Penance when men

have 5 Art. x1. Se. xvii. L Art. x 1. Set. vi. r Art, x1. Sect. xiv.

EE4

[…]

— - -2z — _ […] -

A […] A =

: * 7 […] 4a \ - […] _ - PR - […] —

— FI —

— 2*— 2

[…] *

9 <=. — 7 […] 8 — r — 2 […] ay —

—

—

438 BOOK Iv.

have been in deadly fin; it begins, Other workes there be,” &c*.

Burn, in his Ecclesiastical law, under Disscuters, says, © The tenets of the old Anabaptists were amongst other things,” —*<© that sinners after Bap- tism cannot be restored by Repentance,” &c.— c all which were excepted out of the general

pardons of 32 H. 8. c. 49. and the 3 & 4 Ed. 6.

Puritans have had a notion of making discipline strict; and particularly, of excluding {candalous livers from the Communion. The Brown!fts, a species of Puritans, thought themselves the __ true Church of Christ ; a notion which, when car- ried to an extreme, 15 apt to make men unforgiving. |

Fulke, who wrote upon the Rhemish Testament, was, I think, a Puritan : he says some severe things in answer to the Rhemists on Matt. xii. 31.— „That God will not forgive the sinne against the Holy Ghost, the text is more plaine, then that with any glosse of man’s inventions, it can be ob- scured. That there is a sinne, which he that hath committed, cannot be renued by repentance, the Apostle speaketh as plainly, —Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6,” &c.

IV. This might suffice for an History of the first set of men reterred to in our Article, were it not for the mention of Sin against the Holy Ghost. —Some facts must be mentioned concerning mens notions of that sin. The foundation of all is in three passages of Scripture, which must be read :— Matt. x11. 31, 32.—Mark iii. 28.—Luke x11. 10. Here is some sort of declaration of irremissible- ness, and yet the fin not to be forgiven is nor de- fined ; and in other parts of scripture, men are said to rest and quench the Spirit, and to do despight to the Spirit of Grace. It is not very much to be wondered at, that men of grave and austere tempers 5 Necessary Doctrine is not paged. |

tempers should, in the warmth of reprimanding and warning, come to speak of all heinous fins, as fins against the Holy Ghost ; especially in those, who are not under the Law, but under Grace.” Origen, of old, is“ said to have had this idea.— But it was more common to make any one Sin, or Heresy, particularly attacked in controversy, to be this undefined and irremissible fin.— Thus Athana- sius makes a denial of the divinity of Christ, to be sin against the Holy Ghost. And the Rhemists, on Matt. xii. 24. say, „The like blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is to attribute the Miracles done by Saints, either dead or alive, to the Divel.” —And on Matt. xt. 31. which Sin he com- mitteth, that dieth with contempt of the Sacrament of Pennance.” John Hales, at the close of his Tract upon this Sin, gives /i notions of it maintained by the School- men, one of which is final Impenitency® : another,

impugning

t John Hales’s tract on the subject, page 36. where the same is said of the Nowatians : © they denied remission of fins to any that fell, thinking all falls of Christians to be fins against the Holy Ghost.”—From Ref. Legum. cap. 9, it seems as if the Anabaptists of the times had held the same,

u See Fulke on the Rhemish Testament, Matt. xii. 31. where the Rhemists adopt the /ix notions; and say as just now men- tioned; and where Augustin seems to say, that, if a man set himself obstinately against John xx, 22, 23. refusing or despising

that Remission, which was entrusted to the Apostles when they

were told to receive the Hely Glast, and died in such obstinate refusal, he might be said to fin against the Holy Ghost, But by what Augustin says about dying in the error, it is implied, that he thought a man might repent during his life time, and that with

effect. — 7ohn Hales is mentioned in Mosheim’s History ; though I do not see his name in the Index to the quarto edition, which 1s the only one I have by me at present. I beg leaye to apolo- pize to my readers for sometimes referring to the quarto and ometimes to the octavo edition: it has been very irksome to me to change in such a manner; but it has been a matter of — 8 ih | neceslity :

[…] 7 —— 22 — — 2 „ -_, »- „ LY = — r — =», oa N 2

a.

—

— — »

So.

LY

—— < - - — — 2 TT ESRD.”

LA

[…]

COM v AF Woo. — —

449 BOOK iv. ART, XVI. SECT. v.

impugning the known truth. Grotius is said to have held, that it is the habitual disposition of an hardened sinner. The opinion most commonly held, I think, is, that it is ascribing the miracles of Christ, or the extraordinary works done after his death, to evil Spirits. Archbishops Sharp and Secker have written on the subject, and Mack- night has something sensible in his explanation. — Archbishop Sharp contends, with great appearance of reason, for the whole sentence being only a com- parative declaration of the punishment due to Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in comparison of other fins. But Lord King says“, the Fathers used, in repeating the Creed, to conceive ** For- giveness of Sins” to extend to all fins except that. — As I said? before, there may be a wisdom in many of our Saviour’s sayings, which we cannot yet fathom. That those, to whom he made his declaration, were guilty of the fin mentioned, may not be certain.z much less can we fix it on any one else. But our present business is Hifory : let us now proceed to our second recital of facts.

v. Perseverance is a doctrine so seldom spoken of, that some may not know what it means. It is indeed properly subsequent to the doctrine of Elec- tion, and in most confessions comes“ after Predesii- nation; but here it comes before, probably, that every thing about Sin after Baptism might come into one Article. We before mentioned“ it as the last of the five points. God is supposed to eleft

certain

necessity : at some places and times, I could only get the use of the quarto ; at others, only of the octavo.— The Apology 15 also wanted with regard to some other Books.

• Page 384. on Creed,

Y Art. x1v. Sect. v.

2 It is the last of the five points. = See Heylin’s Historia Quin- quarticularis.— Whitby on the five points: and others,

• Art. x. Sect. xv.

BOOK IV. v. 441

certain men, or predestine them to eternal hap- piness; during their passage through this life, they are exposed to many temptations and spiritual dangers ; if they are not prelerved from these, and made to persevere unto the end, their Election is all in vain. And there are several passages of Scrip- ture, which seem to promise such protection; and which seem to engage, that God shall effe& the Perseverance of the Saints.

This is the doctrine, on which we are to make a few /iftorical remarks. — The Syzoicrs* used to hold, that a man once truly virtuous, was always virtu- ous. The Jews had high notions, that God“ would never forsake his elect; meaning themselves, — But the early Christians do not seem to have done more than Ape for protection and Salvation. Vossius was a man of great learning, and he“ says, that, before Augustin, the Latin Fathers (the Greek ones always) used to ascribe perseverance to the Grace of God, (it is but a series of good works), but not to any decree of God. a

Augustin joined with his Predecessors in ascribin

Perseverance to the Grace of God; but he added the idea of that perseverance having, in every case, been predetermined. — That all those, who are elected to go through a state of Justification to eternal happiness, will persevere in such state, seems onl an identical proposition: hut some stubborn facts are apt to come in the way of this: good men do fall into sin; even those applauded in Scripture,

and

[…]

© Art. x1. Sect. 1. d Hist. Pel. Lib. 6. cap. 11, 12, Thesis. : © This from Vossius, ibid. but Baxter doubts the authority;

on Perseverance, page 8.— For Augustin’s opinion see also Sect. x xx. |

| 442 BOOK IV. v.

and inspired. How is this to be managed? why, says

| Augustin, others, besides the elect, may fall away; but they were never the elect, though upon * a foot- ing with the HE.

This seems but trifling work, for to mere Auman

eyes, according to this, some true Chriltians, or

Saints, perlevere, some fail.—I really believe Au-

gustin meant only to frame his notions so as to

neglect no text of Scripture ; he hit on no better

| method of bringing them into one plan, and fo he

| adopted this* method: perhaps some better may

hereafter be found; but to neglect no text is the

honest plan: —it is fashionable to think he went 700

far; many learned men“ have thought he did not

go far enough. However wrongly he might judge,

his mistakes, if such they be, were probably owing

to his being serious, pious, modell’, feartul of neg-

| lecting

| See de Correptione ct Gratia. Cap. 13.— T. 10. p. 510. Sect 40. Edit. Bened.

s ‘I’his seems the more probable the more one sees the manner in which he argues on different texts. He strongly disclaimed the notion that any individual could know whether he had the gift of Perseverance, or was one of the elect.— He says, God does not /e? men know this, for fear they should be too careless.

De Corr. et Gratia, cap. 13. (page 510. Ed. Ben. Tom. 10.) De Dono Persev. Cap. 6. quoted in Sect. xxx. In this way, could Augustin’s Doctrine of Rerseverance and- | Predestination do much harm ? Is it not (as to Predestiuation) like that of our Church? (this again Art. xv11, Set. v.)— After considerable attention I seem settled in my opinion, that Augustin meant only to keep both divine and human agency,

| which were to be reconciled as well as they could. He opposed

, the Helagiaus in order to keep the divine agency, and the

Manicheans, in order to keep the human agency. I do not think he cold reconcile divine and human agency: and perhaps, in defending the one, he might sometimes, for a while, pay but little attention to the other. — And in defending either, he might understand some texts too /ztcrally. (See Art. x. Set. x1.) That Letter to Falentinus, prefixed to De Gratid et libero Arbitrio,

| proves all this to ze sufficientiy.

| n Baxter on Perseverance, page 5.

| i Baxter ibid. page 6. quotation,

BOOK IV. ART, XVI, SECT. v. 443

lecting any thing revealed : thus was he inclined to support, in general, the Divine Agency; and he probably felt, that what seemed peculiar to Christi- anity, was not to be softened in order to make way for vulgar notions and habitual prejudices of ordi- nary men. Then his adversaries might sharpen his temper in dispute; as he might often be fully persuaded, that they were wrong, when he was unable wholly to extricate from difficulties what he judged to be right.

Such failures in the perseverance of Christians, as I have mentioned, have been the great sources of dispute. Some have been bold enough to say, that, when Christians fall into Adultery *, or drunkenness, or commit murder, they may per- severe all the while; not zeta/ly, but finally: Such offenders have been compared to leaves sprouting forth (for they are supposed to reform) from a trunk seemingly dead; or fire breaking out from ashes seemingly extinct. An auxiliary idea has some- times been taken in, to solve such difficulties z— something of a confirming, has been assigned as a cause of persevering ; something /ub/equent to Jus- tification ; perhaps as supplementary to election; but I would not detain you with attempts at pre- cifion in this matter. Richard Baxter, who seems to have been a conscientious man, and well skilled in religious opinions, has stated 7zwelve’ notions of

Perseverance,

In his pamphlet, entitled, © Of the Saints Perseverance :’? his honesty appears, page 16, 17. (the latter is noble,) and in

his refusing the Bishopric. of Hereford in order to adhere to his old flock at Kidderminster,

444 BOOK IV. ART. XVI. SECT, VI—-VIIL.

Perseverance, each held by some particular man, or -set of men.—I will only, at present, observe, that as all was ascribed to Grace, there is a kind of Grace called confirming Grace; - the Gift of Perseverance.

Of special Grace I have spoken under the tenth Article *. ä

vi. But to proceed with our History.

The Pelagians, | believe, ascribed perseverance in the Faith, to the agent himself; or thought it, some way, in his power to persevere. But the Semi-pelagians are said” to have made this distinc- tion; they allowed, that Perseverance was so far owing to God, that men could not persevere i out divine assistance; but they denied any one’s having such assistance that he could not but per- severe. ä

VII. It seems as if the idea of Perseverance as effected by God, may have been growing stronger from the time of Augustin, down through the Scholastic ages to the Reformation, and for some time afterwards.—Those of the Reformers, who were high Predestinarians, were high in their no- tions of Perleverance;—we shall see more of them in the next Article. Some thought Perseverance a consequence of Election, so that the truly faith- tul never do fall away; it is possible, they would say, but it never will kappen;—others thought it impossible? —The latter, I think, were Zuinglians, the former, Calvinists.

VIII. The Romanists reckon, that all Chris- tians may fall into sin, and even continue in sin;

and,

m Art. x. Sect. x1x.

» Forbes, Instruct. Histor. Theol. 8. 19. 1.

o See the passage from Gurtler, ©* Reformata Ecclesia,” &c. lately quoted; near the end of Sect. v.

? Baxter’s 7th and 8th Opinions, —Calvin’s own idea, Inst.

and, as before*, that a mortal fin puts them out of a state of Grace: which state may be often lost®, and recovered, One might consult the end of Rom. viii. in Fulke’s Rhemish Testament, though it rather runs into the doctrine of As«- rance, However, what Fulke says in answer, is to our purpose; We have no promise that we shall be preserved from all fin, but only from that which is irremissible; but that we shall always persevere in the favour of God.” Before we quit the Romanists, we may say, that almost all churches find some differences arise between their members, as to degrees of divine and human agency ; this difference in the Romish Church we have men- tioned under the tenth Article.

Arminians are commonly opposed to Calvinists. — They at first left our present subject in doubt“; but afterwards declared, that the Saints might fall from a state of Grace.” This is the opinion of the generality of Christians; particularly of the Lutherans, and, as most people think, of the English Clergy.

I will be the less particular about the Reformed Churches, on account of the subje& of the next Article: but some notice may be taken of the Church of England. The Necessary Dodctriue says, It is no doubt, but although we be ones justified we may fall therfro, by our own free wyl,“ &c.— this 1s in the part concerning Justificacion ; and afterwards we are told, that we are to judge of our Election by our persevering : and in the part cott cerning Good Workes, it is said, that if, wher, Christians, we do not © apply our will to worke

well,

—

—

— - G q Rl. Ak . aa 4.2 — 2

ah. —W— EEIES

— — a

—_ 23*«%

_— SR - -

— ES

r — SD ef.

REIT

N : = =

4 Sect. 111. r Council of Trent, Sess. 6. Canons 22, 23. and Cap. 15.

5 Mosheim, Cent. 1th, 2. 2, 3, 4. Vol. 5. page 345. 8vo.— Baxter’s 2d Opinion. IS

446 BOOK iv. VItt.

well, we shall fall from the Grace of God, &c.— Bishop Overal observes, that our Article does not determine anything about total or final Perseve- rance, but that in our Homily Of the declining from God,” it is laid down, that wicked Christians, after Grace received, may perish finally. do not fee such an expression ; but there are several of like import. And near the end of the first part of the Homily on Good Works, it is said, that the Thief on the Cross was indeed justified by Faith ; but if he had lived, and had not had both Faith and works, © he should have 7% his Salvation again.“

Sal vat ion is here as like Justification, as any where that I have seen.— (Art. x11. Sect. v111.)

The Reformatio Legum declares, that they think perversely of Justification, who think, that the once justified cannot fall into fin.

Mr. Baret’s case is briefly and clearly related by Neal*. A paragraph of his Recantation® will shew, both what he thought, and what he was ordered to think. His affair occahoned © the Lambeth Ar- tides : they will occur in the next Article, but I will read the fifth now: in 1595, the Scholars of Cambridge were taught these?. In 1603, at the Hampton-Court conterence of conforming Clergy and Puritans, the Agent for the Puritans “ re- quested, that to those words in the sixteenth Article, « 2we may depart from Grace, may be added, * but

not

:t Hist, Puritans, Vol. 1. 4to. page 387. A. D. 159c.

z Ina volume of Pamphlets, G- 12 15, Camb. Library

Y Lambeth Articles, in Overal, or Neal,

ot totally nor finally: which, as Dr. Waterland *

rightly observes, ** would have defeated the whole

intent and meaning of the Article,” —In 1618,

the Synod of Dort has this Article, entitled, Of

the certainty of Perseverance.” That such as have once received that Grace by Faith, can never fall from it finally, or totally, notwithstanding the most enormous fins they can commit.” When Oliver Cromwell was on his death-bed, he asked Dr. Goodwin, © Whether a man could fall from Grace! to which the Doctor answering in the negative, the Protector replied, then I am safe, for I am sure I was once in a slate of Grace ,” _ Jonathan® Edwards held lately, and other able men hold now, this doctrine of Perseverance ; though it does not seem to be dwelt upon in popu- lar discourses, | 4; 1x. It seems doubtful whether we need /eparate those who “ say, they can 20 more sin as long as they live here,” from the advocates for perseverance. —F7ovinian is mentioned as the leader of a. sect, qui dicunt* hominem post Baptismum nullo modo posse peccare;” but this was not on any predestinarian principle. How does Jerom argue with Jovinian on this point“? The Mystics _ tione

• Supplement to Arian Subscription, page 33.

= Neal, A. D. 1658. Vol. 2. 4to. page 512.

d See on Justification, page 86, &c, | |

© See Opera Aug. Ed. Bened. Tom. 10. Append. page 75.— A confession of Faith thought to have come EE ome, who did not join in condemning Pelagius, &c. about the year 418.

4 Jerom only proves the frailty and finfulne/5 of man in general, seemingly: I see no argument of Jovinian’s but 1 John iii. . which serom only aniwers by 1 John v. end: he does not /olve the inconsistency between a Christian’s never sinning, and his

being exhorted to keep himself from any fault, as Gentile wor- ship, or idols. This error of Jovinian’s is treated at the begin- ning of Jerom’s second book against him, Bower’s account of VOL. 111. F x Jovinian

o

= ; “7 oy

b |

• N j WJ

P = =

y - […] 4 — - 2 […] . r — — _ - […] 3 1 — a my […] c - 5 […] 22 — * 4 5 * —

— — - 1 […] - —

• _ _ on — — en —= — —

= _ 8 — _ = — a — — 1

„ 8 2 - — —

[…] —

tioned by Baxter, were perseverers; and so were the Antinomians; we mult read a word or two more about both these, than we did under the last Ar- tide : we saw*, that they were (soi-disant) finless; but not that they were always to continue so: our Reformatio Legum notices the Antinomians, in the chapter before referred to, in these words, * ce aut f forte quicquam eorum faciunt que Dei Legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis* non accipere.” — The confession of Augsburgh con- demns the old Anabapti?s* as holding, that Chris- tians after justification, cannot lose the Holy Spirit : and refers to others, who think, that men * may have so great a measure of perfection in this present life, that they cannot fall again into in. — Bur the Anabapt ists split into many opinions. From all this we collect, that the Mystic, the Antinomian and the Predestinarian, hold the doc- trine of Perseverance on different principles: The first, because he is united to God; the second, be- cause his fins are all laid on Chris; and God sees no fin in his people: the third, because a decree passed in his fayour, before the beginning of time.

• It

Jovinian (Vol, 1. under Siricius) relates only fas; and has most reference to his Opinion, that Wives are as good Christians as Virgins are, By this Jovinian seems to have given offence : his idea about /inlesne/s seems to have been, that, when a man was become a Christian, the Devil could not hurt him: could not tent him; so as to seduce him; but see more Sect. x1x. Baxter on Perseverance 3d. and gth Opinions: (Art. xv. Set. v.) the zd is about Enthusiasts: he mentions Weigelians, about whom see Mosheim, Cent. 16. 3. 2. 1. 12. De flier. Cap. 9. e Art. *x1.—See Heylin’s Quinq. Hist. page 519.— Alb Syntagma, page 15. 3 b I think it ought to he, © some men,” the Latin is aliglibus. The English words are, I think, Heylin’ss ;

BOOK Iv. ART. XVI, SECT. x. 449

x. It seems as if we ought not to close our History, without taking some notice of a Christian’s assurance concerning his own salvation. Such per- suasion does not fee eem to have been entertained before* the time of Augustin, except Jovinian had something of itz but Vossius* shews, that, in the time of Augustin, several Fathers entertained it; though, from same passages, it seems as if Augustin himself had not.. Assurance of one’s own being in a state of favour with God, and in a state which will continue, may arise either in the Myfic, or the Antinomian, or the Predesiinarian way, as was just now said of the general doctrine of Perseye- . rance.— As an illustration of the first, one might repeat the case of the Weigelians ; of the second, Baxter’s twelfth opinion; of the third, the notion of the Zuwnglians”, or the Lambeth Articles, or Baret’s Recantation, or the Article of the Synod of Dort; and we might add, the answer of Fulke” to the Rhemists, on the conclusion of Rom. viii. which would lead us to the opinion of the Roma- nists, shewn in the Annotation on that passage: and that might be farther confirmed by the Canons of the Council of Trent.

The Church of England does not seem to say much directly again ——— ; we see what 1s implied in this Article: (Sect. xxv.)—perhaps an

exprethon

i Baxter’s 2d Opinion, with 8 page * Hist, Peleg. Lib. 6. Thesis 13. page 750. w ere three de- grees of Faith are mentioned; the third strengthens him fo,

that he can fall no farther ; ef hoc de se cortiffim? seiate” This ex- pression 1s from Gregory the Great,

See Baxter, Page 75 bottom, from De Civ. Dei, Lib. 11. Cap. 12. |

8 aer 8th Opinion; and see Heylin’s s Hist, Quingu. page : 1 before, Sect. v111, * Session 6. Can. 13. and 14.

FF 2

1 […] ws — 9s on.

-— <A

450 BOOK IV. xt.

expression in the Homily on Repentance may give the true sense of the Church. © Although […] fall into great […] by […] is an assured and infallible hope of pardon and remission,” &c.

The conclusion of the Article of Faithe in the Necessary Doctrine, is also well worth reading. It says, but whether there be any special particular knowledge which man by faith (I neglect the spel- ling) hath certainly of himself,” &c.—*< cannot be found” (no such thing can be found) “ either in Scripture or Doctors,“ (Fathers). | I think Mr. William Law, a Mic, used to teach the doctrine of Assurance; and fo, if I mistake not, did John Wesley, on the fame ground®: if Mr. Whitfield taught it, which I should imagine he did, it might be upon Calvi- nistic principles. I fear some teachers have spoken ambiguously on this point ; at least to them that are without: perhaps it might be only speaking of assurance as not absolutely necessary in all. I con- dude with the honest confession of Richard Baxter; but the paragraph 1s too long to be transcribed : it ends thus; “ I never knew. the man that at- tamed’ any more than such a strong persuasion, (as

he had described) mixed with some doubtings and

fears: yet so far overcoming them“, as to live a peaceable joyful life.“ |

I will close the History. of this Article by ob- serving, that it is one of those, to which, in the time of Archbishop Wake, Dupin, made no ob- jection. The account is given in Mosheim’s his- tory, Vol. vi. octavo, page 77.

x1. My historical remarks have run out into {ome length but I hope I have introduced nothing

which P. S. See Dr. Rutherforth’s 3d Charge, 1 P. S. See Ruthertorth, ibid. opening, * On Perseverance, page 21,

which will be useless. I now proceed to Expla- nation,

We begin with the Title: Of Sin after Bap- tism;”” the title in 1552 was, Of Sin against the Holy Ghost ;” and then the Article said, in effect, the Anabaptists are wrong in calling a/l great fins, sins against the Holy Ghost; and therefore another Article was subjoined, which was entitled, * Blas- phemy (not of Blasphemy) against the Holy Ghost.” In this, the fin was defined, and de- dared unpardonable. I am glad it was blotted out; as I should rather doubt our authority, either to make the notion of the sin quite definite, or to de- clare it unpardonable, in an absolute sense. The title stands altered by the* hand of Archbishop Parker; and the reason of the alteration might be, that the subject of fin against the Holy Ghost was by no means the subject of the whole Article.

XII. © Not every” — this expression implies, that there may be some fin, which is properly sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable, though nat every” great and wilful fin is so.

X111. © Deadly fin,” or mortal fin; this is op- posed to the sins treated of in the“ preceding Article, such as the best Christians are apt to fall into; there are several other words used, which. are supposed to be equivalent to deadly ; as great, heinous, scandalous, notorious*, &c.— We have already had some Latin words to the same? effect. The word seems to have been taken from Scripture

and

5 The title of the gth Chap de Hæresibus in Reform. Legum, is, “De casu (meaning the same as lapsu) justificatorum, 7 peccato in Spiritum-sanctum, |

• Strype, 1562, Annals. « Art. xv. Set. x11.

Lord King, Creed, page 382.— Lardner, Noyatus, - Works, Vol. 3, 210. — „

7 $6, 11. STE

FF 2

N N N

and the Fathers. —See 1 John v. 16.—with which might be compared 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. and Gal. v. 21. though the word deadly does not there occur. Mortale peccatum we had before *.—If any one asks whether I can always tell a venzial fin from a deadly

one, I answer, that divisions of things, and of

actions, into classes, are useful, though it may be, in some cases, doubtful to what class a particular

thing should belong. This is true of the genera and species of natural history; if you divide a set of

animals into horses and asses, you will have a mule coming across to puzzle you, now and then; and the same sort of difficulty will occur in vari- ous instances, moral as well as natural. But the next expression should be taken in, before we proceed,

XIV. Willingly committed” in order to make a sin of the kind meant in the. Article, it must not

only be hurtful in its nature, but be committed

wilfully, A man may perform an act which every one, hearing merely of the act, would pronounce mortal or heinous, and yet the man may not be

upon the same footing with one, who commits the

same act, knowing and feeling its heinousness: according to the Necessary Doctrine, if he does not perform it wilfully, he loseth not the state of

his Justification, but remaineth still the child of

God.“ What act more heinous than Parricide ?

yet the American destroys his aged parent; pur-

posely indeed, but not wilfully, in the sense of our Article, or conscious of his crime. XV. Now let us return to our d inction, be- tween venial and mortal fins. We know by expe- rience, in every way of life, in academical life, for . instance, # Sect. 11.

• I only modernized the spelling of this passage ; it is in the part about good wworkes ; rather after the middle.

BOOK IV. ART. XV1. SECT. xv. 453

instance, that there are some smaller irregularities, which do not throw a man out of the character of a regular man, though he may sometimes suffer some degree of punishment for them ; but that there are others, more grols, which occasion a temporary suspension of his academical privileges, so that it is difficult to say, whether he is, for a time, a true Academic or not. Yet mere a&s will not make the difference between irregularity which is tolerable, and that which is intolerable, except regard be had to circumtances allo.

If no fins or offences are made venial, you drive men to despair; if particular offences are made venial, such come to be commuted freely, and without remorse; and almost any may, in some cases, be very pernicious. |

You cannot, as the Sfoics are said to have done, make all offences equally heinous ; that would drive a man to murder, when he might have aimed only at theft. Neither can any human reasoning con- vince us, that God will make all offences equal. Nay, the scriptures speak of some men having © the greater* sin;” and of some who are beaten with fewo stripes, and others with many,

Attempts have been made to draw the line be- tween venial and mortal fins: but neither the angelic Doctor Aquinas, nor the celebrated Car- dinal Bellarmin, would satisfy honest Richard Baxter. Robert Baron gives five criteria; but they come too near fixing upon particular offences’. — Our Church acknowledges the distinction, by praying, in her Liturgy, both against © every | deadly tin,” and for forgiveness of Negplipences and Ignorances.“

| Permit

d John xix. 11. © Luke xii. 47.

« See on Perseverance, page 34.

[…]

454 BOOK IV. xv.

Permit me to give my own 1dea of the man- ner, in which this distinction ought to be made. No fins whatever ought to be considered as venial beforehand ; but, when a man comes to look back upon his conduct, and finds, that he has run into some things wrong, without having been very negligent, and without any deliberate bad purpose, then he may hope, that what he has committed will be deemed venial, if his repentance be pro-

portioned to the offence into which he has run.

But if he finds, that he has been extremely negligent, or that he has deliberately given up his good prin- ciples, in order to indulge some unlawful passion, then he should treat his offences as deadly; and by an hearty repentance, with satisfaction to all whom he has injured, endeavour to restore himself to the divine favour. And, if we are obliged to judge

others, we should put ourselves in each man’s

place, and proceed in the same manner; substi- tuting for repentance, punishment. Such cases may have so much similarity, as to occasion some eneral ideas of a difference between venial and mortal sins; but our judgment can never be right without great regard to particular circumstances. A polite French Ab would reckon fins venial, which would shock a Puritan.

The distinction between fins of ignorance, infir- mity, and wilfulness, is natural, as corresponding to that between the understanding, the passions, and the Will; but ignorance itself may be owing to wil- fulness, or pashonf,

Sins of 1gnorance were thought* by the Pela- glans, no sins; but whatever is“ corrected by punish-

ment,

Bishop Saunderson, in his sixth Sermon, ad Populum, on

Gen. xx. 6. page 263, and Archbishop Sharp, on Heb. x. 26. Vol. 3. have something to this purpose.

4 P. 57. App. to 10th Vol, of Aug. from Jerom’s 2d Dialogue. Art. ix. Seq, xxx.

BOOK IV. ART. XVI. SECT, XVI — XVIII. 455

ment, deserves punishment. Moralists have found it worth while to form rules for the punish- ment of Negligence. — And the Mosaic. law has made the same * provision. — Even the Gospel, though merciful to what is done through real“ ig- norance, speaks of beating with few stripes the offender, who knew! not his master’s will.

xv. * After Baptism’—better than after being born again, &c. because the mark of admission into Christianity, must, in the present case, be such as all the Church could judge of.

XxVII. [s fin against the Holy Ghost, and un- pardonable:“ We have here two predicates to the same subject, and conlequently, in strictness, ?zv0 propositions. {

Not every heinous fin 1s fin against the Holy Ghost. 7-1 GIS

Not every heinous fin is unpardonable.

Or our words might mean, Not every heinous fin is both fin against the Holy Ghost, and unpar- donable; but the Reformatio Legum seems to con- demn separately those who hold, that every heinous sin is fin against the Holy Ghost; and those who hold, that every heinous fin is unpardonable.— On the whole, the true sense appears to me to be this; Not every heinous fin is fin against the Holy Ghost, in such sense as to come under the texts Matt. x11. 31, 32.—Mark iii. 28. and Luke x1. 10.; which, it has often been supposed, declare some fin to be unpardonable. ä |

XVIII. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into fin after Baptism.” — d the grant of repentance” is, in Latin, locus pœni- tentiæ; and in the English Article of 1552, the place for penitents;” the Latin the fame in both. —

• 1 Tim, i. 13.— Acts xvii. 30, Luke xii. 47.

456 BOOK iv. ART, XVI. SECT. XIX.

Locus penitentie is used in Heb. xu. 17. and in Clemens Romanus. — (See Parkhurft’s Lexicon under peravoa,) and is by no means an unusual ex- pression : but in our Articles, we may observe, that < the grant of repentance,” must mean the same with the place for penitents;” otherwise they could not both be English for the fame Latin.— The meaning then seems to be, that heinous of- fenders may be permitted to have some place in the church ; not the place of such as are at peace with discipline, and under no censure; but that of those, who have been in some way degraded, and are labouring to recover their former station. — And this agrees with the confession of Augp/- burgh®, the members of which church (consefledly the most like ours of any) — damnant Novatia- nos, qui nolebant absokvere eos, qui lapfi post Baptismum, redibant ad poenitentiam. There must always be supposed, in every legitimate church, a connexion between abso/ution and re- mission of sins from heaven : See John xx. 23.— Ablolution 1s then rightly given, when there is good reason for expecting such remiffion *.

ExXix. Aster we have received the Holy Ghost,” —this is another* expression for Fu/{zfication, or be- coming Christians, as described from the internal part, or the act of God. It will occasion our using a little repetition : as one wrong notion may caule

several

m Eleventh Article, page 15. Syntagma.

„In the same 11th Art. of the Confession of Augfburgh, Re- mission and Absolution are connected in this manner;

« De Peenitentia docent (Ecclefiz apud nos) qudd lapsis pot Baptismum contingere possit remissio peccatorum, & c. Et quod Zeclefia talibus, redeuntibus ad Pœnitentiam, impertire ab/olu- tionem debeat..— I suppose that wavering between these two things, remission and ab/olution, has unsettled the expressions of our Article,

o See Art. x111, Set, vii. & vIII. and 2 there re- ferred to.

BOOK iv. ART. XVI. sk T. xx. 457 several errors. The corresponding chapter of the Reformatio Legum is intitled, - De calu juftifica-

torum, Why any particular expression was pre. ferred, we may not always be able to see ; but the title of our Article, as was lately mentioned, was originally “Of Sin against the Holy Ghost ;” and the error of the Auabaptists was holding, that after men had been once justified, they could no more lose the Holy Ghost. T he exprefsfion?, as we have {een, is, Damnant (Ecclesiæ apud nos) et. Ana- baptiftas qui negant semel justificatos, iterdm posse amittere Sprritum sanfium.” And Fovinian’s notion was, that Baptiim, (or the mysteries) impressed upon a man’s mind good desires; so that, after Ba tism, he could 201, only good; he was“ also re- strained from error. :

xx. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grate given, and fall into Sin,”

This may be meant to be opposed to, after we are elected, or predesiinated to happiness, we may fall into fin; which would be a contradiction : our Church then says, that the 7u/zfied, or regene- rated, may fall from Grace, and recover their state; but does not say a word about the fall of any per- sons supposed to be predestinated. Grace seems to mean the fame with Holy Spirit; only the expres- fion © depart from Grace,” might be easier than, depart, fall, &c. from the Holy Spirit.“

Toit XX1, © And

P Set. 1x,—Confess. Aug. Art. xi. Syntagma, page 15.

3 See Waterland’s Suppl. to Arian Subscr. page 53.— But elected may mean, either elected to eternal happiness, or only elected into the Christian Society, in the way to eternal happi- ness: in the latter sense, election, admission, and justification are synonymous. The Necessary Doctrine (on Justification) says, «© Whan we bee ones elected and aumitted unto Goddis service, and have received our u/ftificacion in baftisme or be restored

thereunto by true penance,” &c, 1

458 BOOK iv. xx II.

XX1., © And by the grace of God; the word « Grace” may seem to be often repeated; but it would not have been reckoned right to say, that a man could rise from the state of à mortal sinner to that of „a child* of God,” without ascribing such rise to the divine assistance: this is fully expressed at the close of the first part of our Homily on Re- pentance.

XXII. © We may rise again,’ ’ resurgere occurs in Vossius, and, most likely in the antients: it is opposed to lapsus, relapsus, casus, &c.—*< letꝭ him that thinketh he standeth take heed Jest he fall.” — Haęarimxo signifies, (Parkhurst) to fall away in Ezekiel, with reference to apostacy : wagarruue means a fall, a trespass; Adam’s transgression is called the Fall of Man, because denoted by wage- xT@uz. The Calvinists would like better to have, * must rise again; as that would express, according to their language, that the justified persevere finally: supposing the justified to be the fame as the ele, (and the difference between them has been often neglected) this change would make this expres- sion agree with our seventeenth Article, which declares, that the elect, meaning those predestined to life, will © af /engt4” © attain to everlasting felicity.“ — Something turned upon this, when the House of Commons summoned to their bar, in 1625, Mr. Montague, afterwards Bilhop of Norwich, then Canon of Windsor *

But though our Article does not declare for the final perseverance of the Saints; it does nat de- clare againf? it: we may rise again and amend our

lives.” This is probably, what Bishop Overal Ie meant

s Sect. x1v. from Necessary Doctrine.

t 1 Cor. x. 12.

u See Collier’s Eecles. Hist. Vol. 2. page 736. referred to by Waterland. Suppl. Arian Subs. page 54 or see Neal, Index. |

Montag,

BOOK IV. XXIII—XXVI. 459

meant (Sect. vir.) by saying, Nihil hic de total? aut final; defectione a Gratra explanatum est.”

XXII1. And amend our lives,” in Latin, re- fipiscere : from re and sapesco, as it were; to recover one’s sense*; one’s right mind. The articles of 1552 and 1562 have here the same expression; they agree both in English and Latin.

xxiv. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say,” condemned here means much the fame as anathematized, which last is equivalent to © ar- cursed” in the eighteenth Article: the Latin ex- pression here is“ damnandi sunt.” 1 XXV. They can no more fin as long as they live gere: fe - ho? the persons who hold the doctrine, say not, in general, the ja/tified, or the elect can no more fin; but they themsetves in par-

ticular. Does not this look like a condemnation

of the doctrine of affurance £ I consider it as such. The change of persons in the Article, is not to be overlooked. The first part, about absolving the penitent, is all impersonal : in the next, we give our opinion of ourlelves, we the orthodox, as Christians regularly initiated: in the last part, they whom we condemn, speak of themselves. | XXVI. © Or deny the place of forgiveness” —in Latin; © veniz locum denegant :” in the article of 1552, it is, again, © deny the place for peui- tents;” the Latin of which is, pænitentiæ locum

denegant.—By the word gain I refer to the eigh- teenth Section.

• Re/ipisco is used, in Suetonius, for recovering from a faint- ing-fit: resipiscentia was coined, from perarux, in the time of Lactantius, (Ainsworth); there is no idea of conduct in either resipisco or weravrow, except as far as reformation may be sup- posed to follow, of course, from recovering one’s right mind, Or reforming one’s principles H raHα NDH, TO be wneasy, is ouly a /tep towards such change of mind; as has been observed at St. Mary’s by Mr, Dixon of Benet College,

—

—

CS

—

|! j !

460 BOOK IV. xxvVI II.

XXVI1. * To such as truly repent.” — The Latin, in both sets of Articles, is, “ vere re/ipiscentibus ;”* but the Euglisi in the older set is, © to such as truly repent and amend their lives : which may be compared with the middle of our Article, and amend their lives.“ |

If we compare the beginning of the Article with the end, we find a sort of inconsistency; in the beginning, not every fin is unpardonable; in the latter end, no fin is unpardonable. The latter notion seems the one intended, and agrees with our Homily ?, and with Lord King’s * account of the ancients. The former expression 1s evidently oc- casioned by the intervention of fin against the Holy Ghost. There is, however, no absolute con- tradiction between uo sin is unpardonable, ‘and not every {in is unpardonable.”

Here then we close our Explanation, and pro+ ceed to our Proof.

XxXV111. From what has been said, there seem to result four propositions; two principal, each of which has one subordinate.

1. No Christian is incapable of falling into hein- ous fins, or of losing the favour which he has with God as a Christian. |

2. No Christian is taught in scripture, that he is to be assured of his own Salvation.

3. No Christan, when he has fallen into any heinous fin, is incapable of recovery, if he sin- cerely repent.*

4. Not every heinous fin comes under the texts of Scripture, which seem to condemn some fin against the Holy Ghy as unpardonable.

Homily of Repentance, latter end of first part. z On the Creed, page 384.

” %

xxIX. No Christian is incapable of falling into

heinous sins, or of losing the favour which he has with God as a Christian.

Of thus, all texts may be considered as *

which, in any way, imply the possibility of such |

falling. As threatuings in case of such falling, promises on condition of persevering, exhortations to persevere. _

And the fame may be said of all in/fances of such falling. The words of our Article seem to allow us to include the instances of David and Salomon,

though they do not come properly under our pro-

position* : but Peter does; and Hymenæus’, Alex- ander, and Demas*®. All the Disciples“ of Christ too forsook him, and fled. —St. Paul had an idea

of the possibility of his being a — or re- probate.

And, as Perseverance is set forth as the work of the Spirit, all those texts must tend to overthrow it, which speak of the actions of the Holy Spirit as influenced by Man; which speak of man as able to refit, quench, or grieve the Spirit; or to do despite to the Spirit of Grace. These texts must also operate against the opinion, that the Holy Spirit once gained can never be /o/f,

But I will mention some texts 1n particular.— Matt. v. 13.—X. 22.—Luke xxi. 36. Rom ii. 20, &c.—1 Cor. viii. 9. 11. — Xvi. 13.—2 Cor. vi. 1. Col. 1.23 — and ii. 5, 6, 7. (or 2 Thess. ii. 3.)— The Epistle to che Hebrews has too many texts to be enumerated; its general defigu seems to be, to induce

Christians

2 Tt has been thought, that we might with propriety say of ‘David and Solomon, though under the old law, that they had received the Holy Spirit, and afterwards had fallen into sin.— Baxter calls David aj member of Christ,” (on Perseverance, page I 3.) and the Schoolmen seem to have had the same idea,

im. i. 20. 6 2 Tim. iv. 10. 14. 6 Matt. xxvi. 56. 1 Cor. ix 27.

[ n , N s of ol L ’ N „ d ‘C TL Lb “Ri U : \ N q […] i 1s \ ’ #1 . . : * , [! id : - . “4 * : 5 4 : 4 4 : £ 1! ’ ; my .* \ ik 11 8 : G 0 HY ” ‘S N iT 1a p + 7704] £ N ) 4 [ LY Wo l * 4 : 4 iT, bY : C ’ þ kl . : 4 oo ’ M r Ni. ‘F . þ iY : , N „„ * I en 1 4:6 in

TOE _ -” > _

2 > E ——

[…] PIE * 2 * 8

462 BOOK Iv. xxx.

Christians to persevere: we may mention, Heb. iii. 6.- 14.—v1. 6.— Xx. 26. 38*,—1 Pet. v. 8, 9.— 2 Pet. ii. 20, &c.— iii. 17.— Jude 20. 9 585 Whole Churches may be unchurched ; compare Rev. i. 20. with 11. 5. These texts conclude against impeccability, on whatever principle it may be founded. | 5 xxx. This may suffice for direct proof, with regard to the matter of Perseverance: Let us take some indirect proof, relative to the same sub- ject, keeping as clear as possible of the subject of the next Article, Predestination; indeed, there seems little more wanting, on the doctrine of Per- severance, than to shew how understanding men might be induced to profess it: and this is best shewn by considering their o4jefions to our argu- ments. 6 . They seem to have thought this doctrine suited to the Immutability of God: Baxter blames those, who of old held the Arminian opinion, “ Yea, (he says) when they saw that this was liable to be assaulted with the absurd consequence of inferring a change in God, some did not stick […] Heb. vi. 17, 18, would be added in confirma- tion. But those, who keep in mind our manner“ of acquiring, ideas of the qualities of God, will allow, that we have no right to ascribe immuta- bility to God any farther than it implies peryection, or is opposed to some imperfection. And it is not for man to consider it as any imperfection in God to place man in a state of probation: nor to con- sider it as fickleness, to reward only during good behaviour.

. f Whitby puts some of these texts together; on Perseve- rance, (as one of the five points) Chap. 2d. p. 414.

s On Perseverance, 2d Opinion, page 3.

h Introd, to 2d Part, Sect. viii. and Appendix to Art. xi. Sect. xix.

behaviour. This is well expressed in the Necessary Doctrine, at the close of the preface, or Article of Faithe, And the immutable counsels of God, as described in the passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, lead only to hope as their ultimate end. — It is called an anchor of the soul. We are told to be sober and hope* unto the end. Hope always im- plies a poslibility of disappointment.

I will now give some of those texts, which seem the best supports of the doctrine of Perseverance z or impeccability.—Matt. xxiv. 24, may imply, that it is impossible to lead the ele# into error: the prayers of Christ, Luke xxii. 32. and John xvii. 11, 15, imply, that God protects and preserves the faith of good Christians. John x. 28, de- Clares, that Christians shall have eternal life, shall never perish, shall never be plucked out of the hand of Christ. Rom. viii. 38, 39, is to the same effect. Rom. xi. 29, shews, that God does not give and take again. The tendency of other texts is evident: as 1 Cor. 1. 8. — 2 Cor. i. 22, — Gal. iv. 5.—-Eph. i. 13.— iv. 30.— Phil. i. 6.— 2 Thess. ni. 3.— 2 Tim. it. 19,—1 Pet. i. 5. and 1 John

These texts may serve to give an idea of the manner, in which men have been induced to pro- fess the doctrine of Perseverance. As we have mentioned them, it seems proper to endeavour to get some satisfaction amidst such contending au- thorities. And the more, as a due consideration. of these texts will be the best introduction to the seventeenth Article, which has always been ac- counted particularly difficult, I will first take some notice of each of these texts, and then make a few general observations. |

Matt, i Heb. vi. 19. * 1 Pet. i. 13. VOL. 111. G 0

464 BOOK IV. xxx.

Matt. xxiv. 24. seems to me rather to imply a possibility of deceiving the elect, than an impesi- bility: I speak of natural impossibility, not of moral. It implies, that false Christs would find much more difficulty in deceiving, by their specious pretences, those who were already grounded 1n the principles of genuine Christianity, than those who were not of any religion, which professed itself to be a completion of prophecies concerning the true Christ. Besides, the saying in question is itself grounded on an exhortation to beware of credulity. As to the Prayers of Christ, they must imply some degree of nucertaiuty; and are inconsistent with Perseverance being absolutely promised by God ; or a gift quite determined upon. The prayer of Christ in favour of Peter, that his faith should not fail, was before it did fail; and though he rose again, and recovered his right mind, yet that was not the object of the prayer.

The prayer of Christ in John xvii, was for the whole body of Christians; there is no doubt, however, but that the whole body of Christians, as such, may depend upon having the protection of God; though that protection may not take any Z#dividual out of a state of probation. Nor, with regard to John x. 28, 1s there any doubt, that the Fock of Chrilt is intended, as a flock, to have eter- nal life; though some individuals may be found, « like sheep,” to“ have gone“ astray.” Our /hep- herd is sirong enough, to prevent the wolf, or any plunderers, from plucking them out of his hand; but, if he depends upon them to * know his voice,” and * follow hin,” some may wander and be lost. Of the conclusion of Rom. viii. we have said something® lately. — Rom. xi. 29. relates

intirely

= Is. 111.5,

• Set, viit. and x. also Art, xv. Sect. xx.

BOOK IV. xxx. 465

intirely to the Jews“, who rejected the Gospel: Such was the fidelity of God, that he would still perform the promise, which he had made to their

„ forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever:“

but this has no immediate relation to Christians ; and, if it is applied to Christians, it is part of an argument which declares, that any persons what- ever may be cut off from the Christian covenant, if they do not make a proper use of it. A gift not being resumed, does not mean, that the coudi- tions of it are anulled. 1 Cor. i. 8. appears to express the general design of the Gospel. The Corinthians had enjoyed all privileges of a Chris- tian church in time past; and might depend on the fidelity of God for the time to come: but this

does not prove, that no conditions were to be per-

formed on their part; only that those conditions need not be enumerated just in that place, not in the exordium of the Epistle. The passage, on the whole, has the air of an eloquent and refined ex- hortation. — The next passage, and three others, mention the Holy Spirit, given to the converts, as a seal or a pledge. I apprehend, that, by the Holy Spirit, is meant, in these passages, the extra- vr dinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. A seal some-

times

• See Locke and Taylor on the place. |

? How did this act upon the Heart? there might be strong moral sentiments excited by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit: gratitude, benevolence, &c.— Devout affection also would naturally arise : the difficulty is rather to see how any man could have supernatural gifts without being virtuous and pious, both before and after they were entrusted to him, than how he could be so. It is indeed posible for a person to abuse supernatural gifts, as we find from Matt. vii. 23,—1 Cor. xiv. q; - but it isa thing so exceedingly strange, that we may be fairly allowed to consider extraordinary gifts of the Spirit as generally implying a disposition previously good, and as nourishing every good principle, G G 2

” * - […] D W — 42 - - — - . […] a ” —

yi **

o 1 = C

“IF” - […] had

r —— . 3 *.

466 BOOK Iv. ART. XVI, SECT. xxx.

times is a sign of a contract; sometimes a mark set upon anything in order that it may be known to belong to a certain proprietor. A pledge is either a security, or an earnest, which means, a payment in part. Now, though the expressions of Scrip- ture may have a mysterious and figurative sound, yet there is nothing in them, on which the doctrine of Perseverance can reasonably be founded. A seal to a contract does not oblige one party singly, but both reciprocally : so that if one party neglects conditions, the other is released. A seal, as a mark, does not imply, that the thing marked can- not be alienated, or destroyed, if it does not answer its purpose. A pledge is only a contract of the accessory * kind. An earnest engages to nothing more than to pay the remainder of what was en- gaged for; which is only to be paid if all conditions are fulfilled.

Gal. iv. 5 shews, that we are on the footing of adopted sons in the sight of God; but though adopted sons do, generally speaking, inherit for- tunes, yet any one may be disinherited for ill con- duct. As to Phil. 1. 6. is merely a compliment devoutly expressed; it is evidently an effusion of Christian pastoral affe&#ion : nothing can be con- cluded from it in the way of speculation : the good behaviour of the Philippians was to be referred to God, and they were not to doubt of the continu- ance of his protection.

2 Thess. ui. 3. is of the same kind with some of the foregoing: it is clearly addressed to the 20 le church o Thessalonica, whatever difference of cha- racter might be found in the individuals.

And we might say of 1 Pet. i. 5, that any one, who understands the foregoing, vill not find much

difficulty

difficulty in that; but by looking back to the third verse, we see, that nothing beyond hope was in the mind of the sacred writer. PHY:

Of the last text, 1 John iii. 9. we have spoken before*.

Having now taken some notice of each text, we may proceed to a few general observations.

1. The texts in favour of Perseverance are of a lofty and mysterious nature; those against it are much more level to human affairs; we ought there- fore to have a greater diffidence in interpreting the former than the latter; we ought to conclude, that the idea which we have of the former, cannot be an adequate 1dea; though that which we have of the latter, probably is adequate. Matt. xxiv. 24, for instance, is part of a Prophecy, which has been thought* to have both a primary and a secondary sense.— 1 Cor. i. 8. and 1 Pet. 1. 5. give some /ofty and faint intimations of the counsels of God, such as to us must be, in a very great degree, unintelligible.

2. The texts produced by our adversaries are eloquence, ours are practical directions. Now what is intended to move and persuade is never to be taken so literally as that which is to be the guide of our conduct. Making eloquence into systems of speculation, has been the grand cause of error and controversy amongst Christians *; it is particularly, the way in which men of good understanding, great learning, and of a grave and pious turn, have been misled. It is observable, that several of the texts which are urged against us, are parts of exordiums: and Eph. iv. 30, though not an open-

ing,

r Art. x v. Sect. XIX. s Book 1. Chap. xv11. Sect. x. | t Introd. to second Part, Sections ix. x1, x11. and Art. x. Sect. xLII. G G 3

468 BOOK IV. xxx.

ing, is preceded by fine, affectionate, moral advice, and.1s rising towards the pathetic. 3. The texts of our adversaries have more rela- tion to Theory, or what ought to be, ours more to fact, or what is,—This remark has been“ made efore. 4. The texts against us belong more to collective bodies, ours more to individuals; the effect of this has been * already shewn : When our church was delivered from the dominion of the Pope, it cer- tainly was not to be expected that each Protestant should have all the characteristics, which belons to the collective body of Protestants ; and each Papist all the characteristics of Popery. Some private subjects enjoy more liberty under a Monarch, than others in a free state. John x. 28.—Rom. viii. 38, &c. — and several other texts come under this remark. 5. When Perseverance is spoken of as the gift of God, what we have said under the tenth Article should be applied; for Perseverance is only a series of good acts, or of acts favoured as good. As there- fore we were never to refer any good act to the Grace of God, till it was past?; 70 neither ought we to ascribe our Perseverance to God, till we have persevered. Whatever opinion may have been entertained of Augustin, this was as much his doc- trine as it can be* any one’s. 6. Lastly,

u Art. xy. Sect. xix.

• Art. xv. Sect. xx. with references.

Y Art, x. Sections XXXV, xLII. I.

said, Perseverance could not be /of, merely because it is absurd

to say, that can be lost by any man, which you cannot know to have existed till the end of life arrives. — See Sirmond,

Vol. 3. Opuscula, page 91. —Plaifere and Baxter (Persev.) have something to the purpose. n 8

6. Lastly, interpreting Scripture more literally than other popular language, must always produce error. After all that has been said of Phil. 1. 6, there seems no sufficient reason why it should be interpreted more literally than the proverbial ex- pression ; © a good beginning makes a good ending: and“ if it were possible,” in Matt. xxiv. 24, should be compared with Acts xx, 16. * he basted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.”

I now proceed to the second proposition, which is annexed to this, and, in a manner, comprehended under it. |

xxx1, No Christian is taught in Scripture, that he is to be assured of his own Salvation.

This follows from what has been already proved. Under the fifteenth Article it appeared, that no Christian can say, at any moment, that he is „n- less : and under the sixteenth, that no Christian is incapable of falling into heinous fins : the conse- quence is obvious, if we only allow, that without […] no man * shall see the Lord;” which we have endeavoured to prove more at large under the twelfth Article.

To produce additional texts 1s no way difficult. Luke xii. 4, 5.— Rom. xi. 20.— 1 Cor. x. 12, Phil. ii. 12.— Heb. iv. 1.—XIi. 28.—1 Pet. 1. 7. —these may suffice; nothing need be added in the way of direct proof. Let us look out for sore in-

dire proof relative to the doctrine of affurance,

taking the strongest proofs of our adversaries which we can find.

We must conceive one of them to urge Heb. vi. 11, and x. 22. I used to be told, that these texts were urged in making converts. Some also

have

2 Heb. xii. 14. 6G 4

—

—

= —

he S REL

[…] OD *

” 2 - —— - a […] 2 * — rr. Rs cc” rr “T_T. y — FX RR YT — TEE ” x. “OE. SS, — X […] WW £ a Mos: Xx. YE - 2 A “5 IK “I : - 8 . - ”= — - - PA 4 A

FP = =

[…] x - = HE, MPT = -» — 4 K. * — 10 — MW

U +

• 3 Fr

ASST, _ h A * —

—

po — — - […] 0c - - BY A - _ <= =

” 26 - […] - — - — — —

” ”

wi 2 a 4< *

4 : d — AF nero mug — es

— a. * SD a

= 8 a

470 BOOK IV. XXXxI.

have argued thus; Christ died for®* my sins, there- fore I ought to assure myself he did not die in vain, Some have proved affurance from their own inward experiences: and, we may - observe, as

our direct proof has turned much upon fear, that some have said, Fear was not inconsistent, at least, with perseverance; on the contrary © Fear caused perseverance. And it has been said, that some learned and sober-minded men, free from enthu- siasm, have declared, in the most credible manner, when dying, that they felt more than even a“ lively hope of salvation.

In reply, we reason thus; the assurance men- tioned in Heb. vi. 11. is only © the full assurance* of hope;” and it stands between two exhortations to diligence, Heb. x. 22. mentions the * full assurance of Faith,” but the beginning of the next chapter informs us, that Faith is the substance of things hoped for.” —Christ died for me; true; so he did for the whole world; is the whole world assured of Salvation? that is not said. As to in- ward feelings, the scope of Mr.* Locke is, to prove, that the enthusiast himself has not reason to conclude that he is inspired ; but supposing he had, he certainly gives no proof to any one else*. Self- deceit is always to be suspected; Jeremiah“ says, et he heart 15 deceitful above all things :” Bp. Butler treats the subject of self-deceit in his masterly way: and what he says of it in general, seems applicable to

this b See Rutherforth’s 3d Charge, notes,

© Baxter on Perseverance, page 39, bottom.

© In the original, IlAnge@ogicary Trs Ng. The Divines, to whom the Lambeth Articles were proposed by Professor Whit- aker in 1595, substituted Plerophorid in the sixth, instead of certi- tudine ; and they wished (or some of them) to have substituted Hei for fidei.—F—15;—8. Cambr. On Enthusiasm, Hum. Und. Book. iv. Chap. 19. See Baxter on Perseverance, page 20. b Jer. xvii. .

BOOK IV, xXXI. 4.71

this particular case. Either a man is conscious of having deceived himself, or not: if he is, he has deceived himself in some degree; if not, he has de- ceived himself in a great degree.

Men persevere by means of Fear; it does seem possible, that God may foreknow, that a man may persevere unto the end; and fear may be the in- firument by which he perseveres; but while a man fears, he can know nothing of the event ; except as far as he forms an estimate of his condition from examining the state of his mind, and comparing it

with the Laws of God; to such judgment as

this we bave no objection ; but we would not call it certainty. | | Lastly, I will not deny the fa#, that some men have afforded reason to believe they enjoyed, on the point of death, something beyond a lively hope of future bliss; supposing they really did, that 1s very different from its being taught in Scripture, as a doctrine, that every good Christian must have an assurance of his being 1n a state of Salvation, during a good part of his %. Good and sober men, with very few exceptions, have disclaimed* such doctrine; though as /ikely to experience the blessed influence of heaven upon their minds, as any men. I 1magine, i As all Christians must acknowledge the influence of the Holy Spirit, the precise meaning of expressions relating to it

may sometimes be difficult to ascertain : but I have understood it

to be declared, with regard to /eme thoughts or feelings, though not with regard to all, that a man, (not every man) may distin- ouish whether they arise in his mind naturally, or come from the Holy Ghost ; may say, with regard to some sentiments arising in his mind, is is from the Holy Ghost.“— I mean, that I have so understood what I have heard myself; spoken in public; spoken with earnestness, and distinctness, though in the Latin language. 145 “My

With regard to Baxter, fee end of Sect. x. and his Pamph- let on Perseverance, page 20, 21, and 17; and the end of this Section: For Augultin lee Sections v. and x.

—

—

rr Y $ *

AMD WIE WW, WTR. EA”. mr 5 T2, < — N […] _—

— —

Sz “LIE =

— , Pre. […] ad - rr

— Z

ꝓ—— —

imagine, that the doctrine of assurance has succeeded, as much as anything, from an idea, that those who disclaim it, — to the good and pious a lively spiritual satisfaction, or joy in the Holy Ghost : yet this is far from being the truth. It seems possible, that they, who have for a length of time lived in confirmed habits of virtue and piety, may look forwards. to. a future life not only with comfort but with rapture and exulta- tion ; though perhaps never without some degree of diffidence, or modesty. If they have been in all things willing to live honestly, they may ry? they have a good conscience : if their heart condemn * them not, they may have © confidence toward God:“ they may taste the good word of God, and * the powers“ of the world to come, in such a manner, as to enjoy great happiness, without ever being out of a state of probation, I conclude, as before, (Sect. x.) with a sentence from Baxter, where he is shewing the neceffity of religious fear, and at the same time shewing how it should be regulated. — We teach all Christiansꝰ to contend with the utmost diligence, to get up to the highest trust, love, joy, thanksgiving and praise, as the proper evangelical excellency nearest heaven : and to get as fast as they can, above that fear which hath torment, which is cast out as love groweth perfect: and to pray and seek for the Spirit of Adop- tion, of Power and love, and of a sound mind, instead of the spirit of Fear and Bondage : and not to place too much of their religion in that very fear which in its season is a duty; much less in hurtful, sinful fear: but always, and in all things,

to.

I Heb. xii. 18. m 1 John ui, 21. n Heb. vi. […] Catholic Theology, part 3, page 257.

to rejoice in the Lord, with love and gratitude ; and confidently to cast all their cares on him.“

xxxliI. Our third proposition is, |

No Christian, when he has fallen into any hein- ous fin, is incapable of recovery, if he sincerely repent.

This will seem, to most men, self. evident; but yet there are texts of Scripture, which have led some men into a contrary opinion. Examining the true meaning of these, will be our principal business. The direct proof need not be long; it will be given more for the sake of regularity, than becaule it is absolutely necessary. Consult then Matt. vi. 14.—xviii. 2432. Luke xv. both as to the joy over a repenting sinner, and the Pro- digal Son. — John xx. 23.—2 Cor. vii. 10.— Gal. vi. 1.—Eph. iv. 32.—2 Pet. iii. 9.— 1 John 1. —Also the instances of forgiving David and Peter.

— The expressions of the“ Evangelical Prophet, on

this head, are strong.

The chief objefions seem to be eight in number; I will mention them all, before I endeavour to answer any-of them, If the difficulty of some of them detains us, it will promote candour to- wards such of our Christian brethren, as may seem to have encouraged needless doubts about a plain doctrine of Oy

XXXIII, 1. Does it not appear from 1 John iii. 9. that 1 commits sin, degrades himself to the rank of the unregenerate ?

2. Does not he, who commits one sin, accord- ing to James ii. 10. make himself guilty of a/ fins ?

3- Though repentance before Baptism be avail- able to the remission of fins committed before Baptism, yet will a second and a third, and an

endless P Isaiah 1. 18.

474 BOOK iv. xxxrir.

endless series of repentances, be available in like manner? Tertullian could not think fo; and the Romanists think it so unlikely, that they make the falshood of such a notion the foundation of their Sacrament of Penance.

4. Does not 1 John v. 16. teach us, that it would be vain and presumptuous so much as to pray to God for remission of a deadly fin ?

5. Are not we taught 1n the sixth chapter to the Hebrews, that it is !mpossible to renew to repentance, such as fall away? |

6. Does it not appear from the tenth chapter to the Hebrews, that those, who nu wilfully, have 4 no more sacrifice for sin; but a certain fearful! looking for of judgment?“

7. If there be so much difficulty in the recovery of a sinner, when he is not supposed to have per- sisted in sin for any length of time, what must be the cafe, when he has acquired habits of finning ? —* Can the Athiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ?” then may he © also do good,” who 1s © accustomed to do evil.”

8. Nay, does not God sometimes give men over to a reprobate mind? and do not they then go be- yond a mere facility of finning ? are they not then enslaved by appetite? do they not contract un- natural cravings, and feel themselves in bondage to depraved propenfities ?

These objections contain fome of the most dif- ficult parts of Scripture ; but supposing they could not be satisfactorily answered, they would not over- throw the general doctrine of the Remission of Sins; they might leave an awful difidence on the mind, as no part of scripture should be neglefed; but yet their effect need only be, to occasion a suspense, till the texts on which they are built, We

airly

2? Rom. 1. 28.

faicly reconciled with others more? perspicuous and familiar. — This observation is the more applicable to these texts, as they appear to be introduced in an extraordinary manner, on occasious by no means

common. But let us venture upon an artless ex- amination of each of them.

1 Of 1 John iii. 9. an idea has been already given; and it has 16 been shewn, that regenera- tion allows of progressive and gradual improve- ment; of an approximation to the ideal character of him, who“ doth not commit Sin.” An heinous fin may throw a man Sack in this progression, but may not throw him entirely out of the path, so that he shall never be able to regain it. p

2 James ii. 10. does not seem to mean, that a man who commits one fin, is overwhelmed and lost, in the same manner as he would be if he did nothin right ; but only, that he may be said to violate the Body of Laws taken collectively; or to be * a trans- grefsor* of the Law:“ and therefore is not inno- cent, or blameless, however he may value himself upon his regularity in other points. A man, who broke one of the laws of the 72welve tables, might be said to break ie law of the twelve tables. |

If you heard any one fay, such a person is a friendly good fort of man, but we cannot prevail upon him to observe the College Statutes; you would never suspect him of violating 4 the Sta- tutes, but only some one or two which stood most in his way. St. James seems to have had {ome regular, worthy persons, who, without mean- ing much harm, behaved rather insolently to the

poor

© This plan of keeping Both doctrines till they can be recon- Ciled, see before; Art. x. Sections VI. X1. XLVI.

Art. xv. Sect. xix. |

t Art. 1x. Sections xx iv. and XXX11.

u James ii. 11.

py […] a 6 O— ”

476 BOOK 1v. Xxx11t.

poor in religious assemblies, and shewed too great an attention to the ric; he tells them that, while they allow themselves in such conduct, they must not value themselves as if they were perfectly ame- less.—No one, in short, must ever be allowed to say, I 20, do my duty with one exception, or two exceptions; he must a& upon a principle of being in all things willing” to do his duty: the ex- ceptions will shew themselves soon enough, without being made beforehand. |

James 11. 10. then belongs to those, who are about to do their duty, and are settling their priu- ciples of action; whereas repentance implies Fetro- spect, to which the saying of James seems map- plicable : except as far as it may direct a penitent to ask himself, whether he set out with purposely neglecting any duty. |

3. Whilst the preachers of the Gospel were making Converts, remission of sins prior to Bap- tism, must be the common theme; but yet the Christian plan mult be, to give remission of sins, at all times, more easily than it could be procured on any other plan. |

The prophets must foretell the Christian Dis- pensation with a view to the perpetual continuance of it: see If. lin. 5.— Jer. xxxi. 34.—and Matt, xxvi. 28, and Acts v. 31, must have the same ex- tensive meaning; so must all that is announced by John the Baptist. Indeed to […] must be nugatory, if it is only for sins before baptism 3 and so must be the institution of the Lord’s supper, considered as a * continual remem- brance of the death of Christ.” Consult, more- over, Acts xx. 28,—Heb. iv. 15.— 1 John 1. 1, 2. and our proots of the doctrine of +

: allo

• A HET EvOLty see Parkhurst’s Lexicon, under {HET VOL + Y Append. to Art. x1. Sect. xx11,

— ssä— . […] —

also our direct proof of the proposition now before us. If a Christian does frequently relapse, he may find it more and more difficult to recover; and he may be punishable in a greater degree; and the discipline of the church may proceed accordingly. Yet in no case is an hearty repentance, suitable to the occasion, to be deemed wholly ineffectual.

Even excommunication is only like rustication; it allows of the offender being reconciled to the Church. All we here prove is, that fallen Chris- tians may rise again; how far a Sacrament of Penance may be needful for that purpose, when we have the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, must be considered hereafter.

4. The text 1 John v. 16. is not easy; some have thought it related to curing diseases“ by the prayer of Faith, like James v. 14, 15.—If fo, it 1s clear of our present subject. But, supposing it to relate to fins, the whole passage may have this meaning: sulercessous may be properly “ made for all men*;” for lighter offences they may be made with effect; but when that is declared, it must not be understood to be express/y declared, at the same time, that intercessions all prevail in favour of all #einons fins. If your brother commit an hemous fin, it is not forbidden you to intercede for him: the case stands in“ need of Intercession clearly; but that was not the thing meant®, - No one can engage, that intercession shall procure for- giveness for all fins: a relapse into Idolatry must be

attended

z See continuation of Benson: by imitators of Mr, Locke’s exposition,

4 1 Tim. ii. 1. |

» My brother, Samuel Hey, is of opinion, that the words *I do not say that he shall pray for it,” may mean, I need not say;’ © it is evident a fortiori:? he adds, that he has compared other passages, like, I say not.”

[…]

478 BOOK 1V. xxx i111.

attended with great danger: and in other heinous offences, it. 5 not be thought a matter of course, that prayer is to preclude a future judgment.

Deadly sin therefore may be prayed for; though not perhaps effect ually, if it be not repented of.

5. In Heb vi. the meaning of the whole passage must be attended to. The Apostle presses the better sort of Converts to make a gradual improve- ment; if they did not do that, they were in great danger of going back, farther and farther, till they relapsed into Judaism: this was to be prevented if possible. He urges ftrenuously, © If, instead of improving, you go back, what must be the con- sequence? what can possibly be expected“? cannot such a foretaste as you have had, of heavenly good, keep you in your improved state? = The whole process must then begin again! yet nothing can be tried, in your case, which has not already failed : bow much less likely is it to succeed a second time! Christ died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and became Head of the Church: all this you have felt the force of, and have applied to

ourselves. If you undo this, what is it, in effect, but calling Christ an npoffor, and consenting to his ignominious death ! how disgraceful! to Him and to You! A Field has been“ watered by a enial rain; if its fertility appears in Corn, well; the blessing of Providence is upon it, and it makes the heart of him rejoice that tilled it ;— but, if only 7horus and briers” spring up, what a mortification ! has he who tilled it, or ordered it to be tilled, any hopes — any remedy ? will he not be apt to exclaim,—‘twere beit to burn it up at once? | Such 4 For impossible, in the sense of © not to be expected,“ see Art.

X11. Sect. 1x. and Art. xv. Sect. 111. with references. © Apollos, 1 Cor, iii. 6. |

Such seems to be the meaning of the argument; but it cannot be fairly applied to different! cir- cumstances. Before the converts relapsed, it was a fair argument to press; afterwards, the Apostle would have exhorted them to repentance, Re- pentance would become more difficult by a relapse ; but not inesfectual. |

6. Heb. x. 26. will seem clearly to be about wilful Apostacy, to any one, who reads the 23d and 28th verses, (with Deut. xvii. 2—6,) and also the 32d and 38th. Indeed all the 11th and 12th chapters would confirm the notion. The symptoms of apostacy are first mentioned, in the 2 4, 24th, and 25th verses; and then the fin itself, with its consequences. The Apostle’s address to the con- verted Hebrews, in this alarming situation, seems to have been to this effect. Supposing the Christian religion true, and Christ really the Son of God, it cannot but be an heinous thing to desert Christi- anity. How can any one do, it without treating the character of Christ in a contumelious and con- temptuous manner? And how could God send his Son into the world, and permit him to suffer, and to die, if it were a flight and indifferent matter to forsake his religion? Perhaps you may build your hopes on the sacrifices, to which you have been accustomed; to their returning periodically ; but they are at an end!“ Now once, in the end of the world,” hath Christ sacrificed himself ; but what sacrifice can be available for Apestacy? not the Jewish, as being superseded; not the Chris- tian for that is despised.“ Thus might an Apostle argue, in order to prevent converts from making their Baptism void; but such argument cannot

| invalidate

f Art. xi. Set. x1. with references. # Heb, ix. 26. VOL. 111. H

invalidate repentance whilst Baptism continues in force.

7. Habits do certainly add difficulty to repent- ance, but do not destroy its eficacy. Indeed if they entirely incapatitated men for repentance, there would be a case, in which a man con/d not recover his lost spiritual condition; but, in strictness, our proposition supposes repentance possible ; and only affirms its being available. And in fact, every man may repent if he will; every bad moral habit is to be“ unraveled, or digolved, as it were, in time, and a good one formed in its place; though, in some cases, it is not to be expected, on a footing of probability, that this will . at least, in any short time.

8. The language about a warobate mind, 1s only a referring of bad habits to the superintendence of the Governor of the world : It can therefore add nothing to the last mentioned difficulty : and it has been treated before.

I might have mentioned the case of Esau, who found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears;” but the weravors men- tioned in That cafe does not seem to have been a change of mind in Ejau himself, but in his Father Tsaac*, whom he intreated for a blessing, in vain, Parkhurst’s Lexicon may be consulted

on this point, under peravoa.

xxxiv. We have yet another proposition : Not every heinous sin comes under thole texts of Scrip- ture, which seem to condemn some fin against the Holy Ghost as unpardonable.

I need not dwell long on this; after what has been said about heinous fins being pardonable ; especially as the notion, that all heinous sins are of the same

class

Þ Art. x, Sect. L. Art. x. dect. L. * Gen. xxvii. 39, —Heb. xii. 17.

BOOK iv. ART. XVI, SECT. X&xiv. 481

class with the fin mentioned Matt. xii. 31. has not been held by any considerable number of respe&- able Christians. The three passages about this fin do, in reality, only make one; and the singula- rity of the denunciation makes 1t very improbable, that it should be applicable to all heinous fins, — Supposing all heinous fins were of this fort, what a great alteration must be made in scripture, before that was fully expressed ! — The Epistles contain nothing about blasphemy, or fin, y_ the Holy Ghost. Nothing about it is said when those fins are enumerated, which disqualify ® a man for. the Kingdom of Heaven.

As, in denunciations against fins, it is generally understood, that the punishment 1s to take place except men repent ; there may be no sufficient rea- son why. the fame exception should not be allowed with regard to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost®;

if that be the case, the formidable text Matt.

X11, 31. and its parallels, are no more against the efficacy of repentance, than any others. To make final impenitence the fin against the Holy Ghost,

seems unsatisfactory, (Sect. iv.) because that is

no sin : it is only not deserting fins, without dis- tinction.

The practical part of this subject is, to be very cauticus of acting as the Pharisees did, whom our Saviour reproved, or in any manner resembling, or approaching to their conduct. Though a Christian cannot impute the miracles of Christ or his Apostles to Demons ; yet some, to whom Christianity 1s daily offered, and some nominal Christians, may shew a

greater,

! Matt. xii. 31, 32.—Mark iii. 28. and Luke xii, 10. as mentioned in Sect. 1v.

= 6 Cor. vi. 9 10.— Gal. V. 21.—Eph. V. 5. — add 1 John V. 10.

n See Hammond on Matt. xii. 31. HH 2

. — m […] , m

482 BOOK IV. ART, XVI. SECT. XXXV—XXXV1T1.

greater, or less attention and respect to the proofs of its divine authority.

Ar length we come to our Application.

xxxv. The Application may consist of the same parts as before.

A Form {omewhat analogous to our Article might be used in natural religion.

• As it is the purpose of religious Association to

procure a continuance and improvement in virtue,

and as institutions ordinarily answer their ends; men may fall into a way of speaking, as if those who were associated on religious principles, would of course persevere in good living, and in the favour of God. And some, perhaps partly as fatali/ts, have held, that true virtue, once acquired, cannot be /oft. Yet, such are the temptations incident to human life, that this is rather a subject of hope than of certainty. However, if a man, in such a state of improvement, does fall into any great sins, his only wisdom is to repent and amend his life.— How far his repentance may be accepted, he may not certainly know ; but there is a good proba- bility, that he may be forgiven; and a very strong one, that his repentance may prove greatly beneficial to him.” xXXVI. A Christian may lay, © Christianity is an excellent plan for perpetu- ating virtue and happiness; yet those, who are engaged in it, must not be secure : each Christian may fall from the favour of God; but his fall will not prevent his regaining the divine favour, if he truly repent, on the genuine principles of his reli- gion.“ XXXVII. Mutual concessions may take place, either with the advocates of the doctrine of Perse- verance,

8 Div. Leg. B. ix P- 6 52, quarto.

verance, or with Novatians?. Or indeed they might take place with such as maintain the doctrine of Assurances, or with such as make all heinous fins on a footing with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. |

To the advocates of the doctrine of Perseverance we might say, that the doctrine cannot be a rea- sonable ground of /chism or dissension, because it has never been inserted into Creeds*, or any confessions of Faith, which were to be used by a members of the Church. |

We might moreover inquire, whether they and we have, in reality, such material difference of opinion between us, as may seem on first ap- pearance ?

They think, God causes our Perseverance; we say, that our Perseverance should be ascribed to God; though, as neither of us see his operations distinctly, it should be ascribed indi//infly ; and we say, with their esteemed Augustin, that it should be ascribed after the event.

Both parties own the same fa#s: a Christian falls into wickedness; he repents, or he does not repent : if he does repent, we say, he has departed from Grace, but by the Grace of God he rises again, and amends his life :—They say he is one truly justified, (or elected); he was overcome by fin for a time, but never lost the favour of God; he perseveres finally”. If the man does not repent, we say, he was a real Christian, but has fallen

| away;

For this name, see our Homily on Repentance, page 418, 8 vo. and Sect. 111. of this Article. 2 See Baxter on Perseverance, page 18. 23.

7 If the Calvinists had not understood our departing from Grace

and rising again, as equivalent to their final Perseverance, I do not see how they could have subscribed to this Article.

H H 3

— I 1 = . A AIEE EL” =— - — - : _ 4 *

. “0. g n = * - — — As äæqZ8—ä— ä—ä—ũ—ů̈—— n […] —

—

© ht.

away; they would say, that he never was truly justified (or elected); but then of this they judge by the event as well as we.—<* The house” says Baxter, (alluding* to Matt. vii. 26.) that falleth when the winds arise and the storms affault it, was never built upon the rock, but upon the sands.” His idea is, indeed, that OURS has been different 1n the good and bad, from 7he begin- ning; fundamentally ; we cannot say, that it has not; but the opinion, that it has, cannot be ap- plied to practice. We are ignorant of the begin- ning, therefore both parties must exert themselves as uncertain ; as if all depended on themselves; and, if they form any judgement of the state of any particular men, they can only do it, by reasoning a posteriori; from their conduct as an effect, to the divine will as a cause. o

As to the advocates for Assurance, if the“ assured and znfallible* hope” of our Homily, will not coalesce with their* qualified and wavering cer- tainty, J know not what to say. Would they accept of the expedient of the Bishops and Di- vines, who gave a judgment on the Lambeth Articles, and proposed tubstituting for certitudo,

the original Greek word Plerophoria in“ Latin

letters ?

It time permits, I will here read Baxter’s Prop. v. in his Essay on Perseverance, p. 16, & 17.

To the Novatians, of ancient or modern times, have very little to say, Severity is respectable, though it be not amiable; concessions must depend upon the effects of it: as, on the one hand, dissembling with great sinners may seem to be

treachery On Perseverance, page 33. | © Homily on Repentance, p. 419, 8vo. mentioned in Sect. x. » I think one may call it fo; see the notes to Dr. Ruther- forth’s zd Charge. x Mentioned Sect. vii.

BOOK Iv. ART. XVI. SECT, XXXVIII. 485

treachery to pure religion, and presumption in making ourselves judges of the execution of the laws of God]; so, on the other hand, it seems a duty to aim at the greatest possible good. Severity may disappoint itself; and to proceed in reforming by a mild discipline, improving gradually, seems m_ in the most rational manner; in a manner mo conformable to the Spirit, the precepts, and the models of Christianity.

Those who favour the notion, that all great fins are fins against the Holy G, in such a way as to come under Matt. xii. 31, (and parallel places) are so few in number, and so little respectable, that it seems needless to try to hit upon any compromise with them: if indeed any such persons there be, at this time.

XXXV111. In the way of Improvement, one might be allowed to wish, that, in the words of the Article, all mention of fin against the Holy Ghost were omitted; which would remove the inconsistency between net every fin, and wo sin.— Perhaps the doctrine of Assurance, should be more clearly ex- pressed, or not at all. And it would be best to have both remission of fins mentioned, and absolution. I will only add, that it would be a very great im- provement indeed, if men would learn to construe eloquence rhetorically, and popular language popu- larly: but this belongs equally to the seventeenth Article.

un 4 ARTICLE

Notes

• Sce cap. 20,—Grotius (on Matt. xii. 13.) has some good paslages from Tertullian, &c.
• See Whitby’s five points, end of first Chap. about Perse- verance : and Baxter, page 12-— Gurtler (cap. 15. Sect. 572. page 347+) says, © Docert reformata Ecclesia, illos nominatim homines, quos Deus ex miserecordia potenter transtulit in statum - Gratiz, licet quandoque a Peccato superentur et prastenantur, a Deo tamen relevari et custodiri, ut marere in peccato, in quod inciderant, et :terire in perpetuum, nequeant.
• The short History of the Lambeth Articles, (in F— 15-8, Cambr. bound with Fur Predestinatus) seems to make the first difference at Cambridge, a difference between the Lectures of the two Professors there : Whitaker, Regius Professor, taught Calvinism, and Baro, Margaret’s Professor, taught the opposite. — Baret did preach ad Clerum, &c. but he might be a follower | of Baro: I am not, at this time, Master of the dates. |
• Lev. iv, 2. Numb. xv. 24, &c.— Deut. xix. 4.
• August. contra Julianum, pages 695. 891. ‘Tom. 10. Edit, Benedict. Jovinian, before, Sect. 1x.
• Grot. 2. 12, 6. de 1 &c. —Balguy 2. 3. I. 34. MS,
• Sect. v. — See Aug. Op. T. 10. page 546, which is de Dono Perseverantiz, Cap. 6. Whence it appears, that Augustin
• The Catholic Doctrines, &c. page 37. |