cussion on this point by bringing forward the histories of the Publican, Zaccheus, the Thief on the cross, and the Philippian gaoler, who was converted by the power of the gospel, the moment when he was going to commit an act of suicide. What were the conditions of good they performed in order to their salvation?

Lov. Sir, might it not still be true, that divine grace met with some latent good?

Loveg. An observation of that sort has passed us already but it has been answered by St. Paul— "In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." And the apostle's own experience is still more to the point than any of the former. He was 66 a persecutor, injurious,"-" exceeding mad against the believers in Christ;" he was not only "a blasphemer" himself, but "compelled others to blaspheme also ;" he "persecuted them even unto strange cities;" and wherever he could meet with them, it was his glory 66 to put them to death." Such was his conduct towards Stephen; for we are told, that "he consented to his death, and that he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and hailing men and women, committed them to prison. Yes, and while he was "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," having availed himself of a commission from the chief priests, that he might bring all he could meet with "either men or women, bound to Jerusalem;" it was even at the very moment when he was determined upon the practice of his most bloody designs, divine mercy met with him and saved him. I have indeed heard of some, who could find out an argument even from this to prop up the cause of their conditional salvation, because Paul did this "ignorantly and in unbelief;" here then matters turn right about, and ignorance and unbelief are the terms of salvation. At one time it is only faith and repentance, then good works at Jarge, glossed over by the term "evangelical obedience," though enemies to the principle that renders

them evangelical. However Paul gives another reason widely different from any of the former; "For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, (or as it more correctly means the chief of sinners,) Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them that should believe on him to life everlasting."

Lov. Sir, I feel I am not sufficiently acquainted with these points, to argue with you as I could wish, but I do not think we differ so much as we once did.

Loveg. Dear Sir, matters are at once brought to the point we both wish, if we can but admit, according to the doctrine of St. James (who is oftentimes put in direct opposition to St. Paul,) that "every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Consequently what you call conditions required of us, I call gifts bestowed by him. Repentance is his gift; "Christ is exalted a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance." Faith is said "not to be of ourselves, but the gift of God, and of the operation of God." And when you talk of the conditional covenant under the Old Testament dispensation, should you not rather think of another covenant, made with man in the person of Christ, settled" upon surer promises, and fixed upon a firmer foundation ?" And in order to decide the controversy, let us make an immediate reference to the word of God. "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second: For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my cove

66

nant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord; for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old, now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away. Heb. viii. 6-13.

Consid. Sir, I am afraid, that all your mistakes arise from a denial of the total depravity of the human race. I just argued as you do, till I was convinced, "that in me, that is in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing". I was as unwilling as you can be to submit to the awful truth, that God, since the fall, had totally withdrawn himself from man; and that, consequently, "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil (and that also) continually ;" so that as there is no good in man, no good can come from man, but as implanted there by divine grace; but when I thought myself to be only in this half-way fallen state, I was very contented with the same sort of half-way salvation, which the worthy Doctor has so zealously recommended to you.

Lov. Really Sir, your notions appear very gloomy: though we are greatly depraved, yet, does the law make no allowance for us in our lapsed state?

Mrs. ov. Now my dear, I suppose you are thinking of what the Doctor called his milder-law, which is lowered down to be made more suitable to us in our corrupted state; and that God would now accept a sincere, instead of a perfect obedience; and therefore, that he would put up with "the innocent infirmities, incident to flesh and blood."*

*This filthy antimonian expression I well remember to have controverted many years ago, as I found it in one of the late Mr.

Loveg. Why Madam, was it possible the good Doctor could make use of such expressions? They had better suited the lips of a downright Antinomian? Could he suppose, that an infinitely holy God, could retract the law given, and also so strongly confirmed, even under the New Testament dispensation, to "love him with all our hearts;" or as it is expressed, "with a perfect heart :" and thus flatly contradict his own word, in order to make it somewhat more compatible to the corrupted propensities of our fallen race? did you not mistake the Doctor, Madam?

Mrs. Lov. I really so understood him Sir.

Loveg. Why then you must have understood him, that this milder law can be nothing better than a mere nose of wax; that every one is to obey as well as he can, provided he does it sincerely. And that though I do not love God with all my heart, yet I still love him though partially, yet sincerely. Suppose the thief should say, though I am but partially honest, yet I am sincerely so; as far as I can, and as circumstances will admit: and another should add, though I am but partially chaste, yet I am sincerely so; while all of them might say, all circumstances being taken into consideration, I could not be otherwise, for I did as well as I could. And again, as God has made a new law to put up with such innocent infirmities, they are no longer transgressions,

Fletcher's checks to antinomianism; the great advocate (to say the best) of the double-refined semi-pelagianism of the day; so inconsistent are these writers with themselves. This old heresy, whose proper nest is popery, has been revived in modern days, under the name of arminianism, and the reader is requested to weigh the subject, whether their antinomianism, be not a thousand times worse than what they wantonly charge on others. I ask, whatever good may be found among individuals, yet what have these modern prevailing notions in general produced throughout all christendom? A system of infidelity has polluted the understanding, and therefore it is no wonder, when they talk of the fruits of righteousness, that their fruits are found to be as the apples of Sodom,

because they are not only not forbidden, but are even become allowable, according to the terms of this new law. Now, "where there is no law, there is no transgression:" therefore we are to believe, that it is now revealed from God himself, that the law is only partial, and not perfect; and a partial law allows a partial transgression, provided I transgress sincerely; and, consequently, I give perfect obedience by an imperfeet obedience, because imperfect obedience alone is required; and therefore, if I love God, and pray to him, and believe in him very imperfectly, yet if I do it as sincerely as I can, God will overlook all the rest.

But let us undress these terms a little farther, that we may more fully detect their loose antinomian ambiguity. What is imperfect, must have in it, in a moral point of view, the sin of omission, or of commission; so that what some call an imperfect action, I will venture to call an unrighteous one. And then I can claim the highest reward that can be demanded, as we have before observed, even of Christ himself, for my unrighteous obedience and as " all unrighteousness is sin," by my sinful obedience.Sinful obedience! Sir, did you ever hear such con

tradiction in terms before? To dream of salvation by such a law, must be a dream indeed! And after all, Is it a law? What does it define? Can we conceive a looser guide? We must obey as well as we can, and the conclusion is dreadful. Farewell Christ and his gospel; for if I obey this new imperfect law, while the old perfect law is abolished thereby, there is no doubt but that I may be justified by it, and then the Apostle's conclusion is at an end: "If there had been a law given which could have given. life, verily righteousness should have been by that law."

擦

Lov. Sir, I wish I was as sufficiently master of the subject, as Dr. Orderly seems to be; but I remember well what an admirable use he made of our Lord's sermon on the Mount, that it was all on moral duties,

but