our author's insinuation, that, in case David had defiled half a dozen married women, and killed their husbands, to enjoy them without a rival, we should esteem him six times stronger in grace, if he had not fainted under his sixfold burden, like Judas; because "in this [Antinomian] warfare, those who bear the heaviest burdens are esteemed the strongest" believers; and because "they have that testimony of their love to Christ which is peculiar to themselves." If Satan were to transform himself into an angel of light, could he preach a more dangerous and immoral gospel to an Antinomian and perverse generation?

ARG. IX. Our author's last argument in favour of the necessary continuance of sin in us, occurs page 51, and runs thus:-"I will only add, that by this warfare the Lord weans his people from the present evil world, and makes them long for the land of promise, as the land of rest, &c. I know some will say, This is impossible; and be ready to ask, Are we then debtors to the flesh? [A very proper question! which the author answers thus:] By no means, &c. In our flesh dwells no good thing, &c. Nevertheless he [God] can and does make the presence of evil so irksome to the believer, that it makes him ardently long for complete deliverance from it." That is, in plain English, he keeps his patients so long upon the rack of their indwelling sin, that at last they are forced to long for death, the great cleanser from heart iniquity. This argument would have been complete if it had been supported by these two passages:-"I do well to be angry even unto death:" "In those days men, [plagued by the locusts which ascend out of the bottomless pit,] shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them." To show its absurdity I need only make two or three remarks upon it :—

1. Mark the inconsistency of our opponents. When they hear us press obedient faith upon a fallen or wavering believer, by mentioning to him the terrors of the Lord, the fear of losing the Divine favour, and the danger of being even "spued out of Christ's mouth, and condemned without mercy" if he show no mercy; they say that enforcing the love of Christ on a disobedient believer, will abundantly answer all the good ends which we propose by thus preaching Christ's law: but, when they plead for the continuance of sin, they forget their own doctrine, and tell us that indwelling sin is necessary to keep us in the way of duty, namely, in ardent longing for heaven. They blame us for making use of Christ's law, to spur believers: and yet they, (see to what astonishing height their partiality is grown!) they do not blush to preach openly the law of sin to believers; insisting that its working in their members is necessary to "make them long for the land of promise, as for the land of rest, and for the speedy possession of that great good which God has laid up for them." (p. 52.) We are heretics for preaching the law of Christ, the law of liberty; they who preach the law of sin, the law of bondage, are orthodox, and engross to themselves the glorious title of Gospel ministers!

2. How absurd is it to prop up the throne of indwelling sin in the hearts of believers, that its tyrannical law may make them long for hea ven! Did not Christ long for heaven without indwelling sin? Do not the holiest believers, who are most free from indwelling sin, long most for the beatific vision? And do we not see that fallen believers, who are most filled with indwelling sin, are most apt to be lovers of sin and the

world, "more than lovers of God" and heaven? Are they not the very people, who, unmindful of Lot's wife, stay in the plain, instead of escaping for their life, and fleeing to the celestial mount of God without ever looking behind them?,

3. Is not indwelling sin a clog, rather than a spur, to the heavenly racers? If sin be of such service to us, to make us run the career of holy longing after heavenly rest, why does the apostle, exhort us to "set aside every weight and the sin which does so easily beset us?" If we want a spur to make us mend our pace, need we keep the spur, indwelling sin? Is it not more likely to spur us to hell than to heaven? If we have thousands of sinless spurs, what need have we of keeping that to drive us to heaven, which drove Adam behind the trees of the garden, not to say out of his native paradise?

If you ask, What are the sinless spurs of believers? We reply, all the toils, infirmities, and pains of our weary, decaying, mortal bodies: all the troubles, disappointments, and sorrows, which arise as naturally out of our present circumstances, as sparks do out of the fire: a share of the dreadful temptations which harassed Christ in the wilderness and fre. quent tastes of the bitter cup which made him sweat blood in the garden, and cry out on Calvary. Hear one, to whom our opponents absurdly give the spur of indwelling sin, as if he had not spurring enough without it: "I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh," Col. i, 24. And surely indwelling sin was never one of Christ's afflic.. tions. Again: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall it be tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Once more: some were tortured, not accepting deliverance; and others had trials of cruel mockings, and scourgings; yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonments. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep skins, and goat skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth."

66

I grant that all true believers have not these thorns in the flesh, and feel not the spurs which made Elijah flee for his life before incensed Jezebel, and "request that he might die under the juniper tree;" but, at the best of times, they have, or should have David's affliction, "My eyes run down with water because men keep not thy law:" they have, or should have Jeremiah's grief, "O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep, day and night, for the desolation of Jerusalem, or for the slain of the daughter of God's people!" They have, or should have the sorrow of just Lot, who was vexed "from day to day with the filthy conversation of the wicked among whom he dwelt." To suppose, therefore, that in this vale of tears, tribulation, and sin, we need keep the sting of indwelling sin, because we must "strive against the sin" which is in the world to the end, even unto blood, if we are called to secure the crown of martyrdom; or, because it "is the will of God, that through much tribulation we should enter the kingdom;" (p. 46;) and because we should long for heaven: to suppose, I say, that we must keep the sting, indwelling sin, on these accounts, is as absurd as to suppose that all the keepers and nurses in bedlam must be mad,

and must continue to be plagued with personal lunacy, lest they should not "strive against" madness to the end; lest they should not come out of great disturbances when they remove from their dreary habitation; and lest, while they continue there, they should not see mad people enough to make them long for the conversation of reasonable persons.

ARG. X. Page 52. Our author closes his shrewd plea for the death purgatory by proposing a very material objection: "If any exclaim and say, These sentiments have a tendency to reconcile believers to sin; I must say, The flesh might as soon be reconciled to the spirit, as the spirit to the flesh; or sin to grace, as grace to sin. It is often said, That nature will be nature. And why may not this be applied to the Divine nature, of which believers are said to be partakers?" Hence our author insinuates that the Divine nature of believers is "immutable;" and that, because "to will is present with them," when they sin they still retain God's holiness, as "lions and eagles, however confined or caressed, retain their ferocity and brutal appetites."

I am glad to see that this pious author has still the cause of holiness at heart, and desires to stop up the Antinomian gap. I am persuaded that he intends to do God service by pleading for the continuance of indwelling sin. If he ask for the reprieve of that robber and murderer, it is merely because Antinomianism has deceived him, as formerly Pharisaism deceived the Jews, who cried, "Release unto us Barabbas." If he saw that Christ in us must be crucified afresh, in case the robber in us is not put to death; I doubt not he would be as sorry for his publica. tion, as the devout Jews were for their antichristian request, when they "were pricked to the heart" on the day of pentecost.

But, alas! if a good intention excuse bad performances, it does not stop their mischief. The very desire which our author evidences to secure godliness, is so unfortunately expressed, that it gives her as fatal a blow as the tempter did, when he said to our first parents, "Ye shall not surely die." For, when that gentleman intimates to fallen believers, Ye are possessed of the Divine nature; and, be your works what they will, if to will be "in some degree present," (p. 54,) ye are as much possessed of God's holy image, as a lion is possessed of a lion's fierce nature. What is this, but to preach the very gospel which the serpent preached in paradise; with this difference, that the serpent said, "Ye shall not die ye shall be as gods." But the imperfectionists say, Your salvation is finished: ye have already the "immutable nature" of God: ye are already as gods? Adam believed the tempter, and lost his holy nature. The imperfectionists believe our author: O! may none of them remain "immutable" in the sinful imperfection which he so earnestly contends for!

XI. A Caveat. Having said so much upon our author's mistakes, I should be inexcusable if I did not drop a caution about the veil with which they are covered. His book goes into the world under the harmless title of "The Christian's peculiar Conflict;" whereas it should be called, A plea for the propriety and usefulness of the continuance of indwelling sin in all Christians. This plain, artless title would have made true Christians stand upon their guard; but now they take up without suspicion the cup mixed by the author: and it is well if some have not already drank it to the dregs without fear.

An illustration will give the reader an idea of the wisdom with which the title of this essay is contrived. I write a treatise full upon the advantage of a standing rebellion in the kingdom, and urge a variety of plausible arguments to show the great good that will arise from an inveterate opposition to the government. "If a spirit of rebellion ceases in any subject, the king's patience, mercy, love, and power will not be so fully displayed, nor will the loyalty of his good subjects be so well distinguished and proved: rebellion, and the burdens that attend it, will make us long for peace: guilty, ungrateful rebels will love the king and admire his mercy the more when they are forgiven after their manifold rebellions. And therefore [to use the unguarded words of our author, page 53,] it becomes us seriously to consider how far this great end [of a spirit of rebellion continually dwelling in every Briton's breast] is understood, approved, and answered." I show my manuscript to a friend, who says, Your essay will alarm every well wisher to the constitution of the realm. But I remove his objection by saying, I will not call it "An essay on the propriety and usefulness of a spirit of rebellion constantly harboured in the breast of every one of his majesty's subjects:" but I will call it, The loyal subject's peculiar conflict, an essay on 1 Samuel xii, 19; and this plausible title will modestly make way for my boldest arguments. Pleas for the continuance of rebellion and indwelling sin may properly enough be introduced by such a stratagem.

SECTION XV.

Mr. Hill objects, that the doctrine of Christian perfection is popish; and the author shows that it is truly evangelical, and stands inseparably connected with the cordial obedience required by the mediatorial law of Moses and Christ, insomuch that there is absolutely no medium between the doctrine of an evangelically sinless perfection and lawless Antinomianism-This section contains a recapitulation of the Scripture proofs of the doctrine maintained in these sheets; and therefore the careful perusal of it is humbly recommended to the reader..

HAVING taken my leave of the ingenious author of The Christian's peculiar Conflict, I return to Mr. Hill, who by this time meets me with his "Review" in his hand, and, with that theological sling, casts at our doctrine a stone which has indeed frighted thousands of weak souls, but has never done any execution among the judicious. Your doctrine, says he, "is a popish doctrine;" and he might have added, with as much reason, that it is a Pelagian doctrine too: for; bold as Pelagius and some popes have been in coining new doctrines, they never came to such a pitch of boldness as to say that they were the authors of the doctrine of evangelical obedience, and of those commandments which bind us to love God,-our covenant God, with all our hearts, and our neighbours as ourselves: precious Gospel commandments these, upon which the doctrine of perfection securely rests!

What pope was ever silly enough to pretend that he wrote the book of Deuteronomy, where we find this sweet, evangelical law, "Hear, O Israel: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with VOL. II.

38

all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart," [to do them, I suppose, and not to ridicule them under the names of perfection and popery?] Deut. vi, 5, 6, Now, by what argument will Mr. Hill prove that the pope is the inventor of this blessed doctrine?

Should that gentleman reply, that when God gave his ancient people this gracious law of perfection, he did not give it with an intention that they should personally keep it as an evangelical law; but only with an intention to drive them to the promised Messiah, who was to keep it for them, and to give eternal indulgences to all the believers who break it; we demand a proof: and till Mr. Hill produce it, we show his mistake by the following arguments:-1. Although the Jewish dispensation revealed a "gracious God, abundant in goodness, mercy, and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin," to returning sinners, who penitentially laid hold on his Jewish covenant; yet, if I remember right, it never promised to accept of an obedience performed by another. Hence it is that God never commanded that Jewish females should be circumcised, but confined his ordinance to the males, who alone could personally obey it. We frequently read of vicarious sufferings in the Jewish Gospel, but not of vicarious obedience and vicarious love. For although the obedience of godly parents engaged God to bestow many blessings upon their children, yet the children were to obey for themselves, or to be cut off in the end. The Jews were undone by a conceit of the contrary doctrine, and by wild notions about the obedience of Abraham, and the holiness of the temple, which they fancied was imputed to them in the Calvinian way: and a similar mistake, it is to be feared, still undoes multitudes of Christians, who fatally mistake the nature of Christian obedience, absurdly put on robes of self-imputed righteousness, and rashly bespatter the robes of personal and evangelically perfect obedience, which God requires of every one of us.

2. The mistake I oppose would never have been made by our opponents, if they had not used themselves to tear the evangelically legal part of the Scriptures from the context, in order to give it a sense contrary to that of the sacred writers; it being certain, that, when you have torn a man's tongue out of his mouth, you may afterward force it down his throat, and leave it there with the root against his teeth, and the tip toward his stomach. To show that the precept of perfect love, which I have quoted from Deut. vi, is treated in this manner as often as our opponents insinuate God did not intend that Jewish believers should personally observe it as a term of final acceptance, but only that they should be driven thereby to the Mediator, who should perfectly love God for them: to show, I say, the absurdity of this notion, we need only do Moses the justice to hear him out. Let any unprejudiced person read the whole chapter, and he will, I am persuaded, side against the Calvinian imputation of a Jewish perfection to Jewish believers. Moses begins by saying, "Now these are the commandments, which the Lord your God [yours, through an evangelical covenant] commanded to teach you, that ye might do them, [and not that your Mediator might do them for you,] Deut. vi, 1. Two verses after, he adds, "Hear, O Israel, and observe and do, [not, Hear, O Israel, and another shall observe and do for thee,] that it may be well with thee." Then comes our capital