strongly to declare, that those who are branches of the true Vine may finally fall.

"But this, you say, furnishes an argument for, not against, the persevering of the saints.”

Yes, just such an argument for final perseverance, as the above cited words of St. Paul to Timothy.

But how do you make it out? Why thus. "There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine: the one fruitful, the other unfruitful. The one are eternally chosen, and these abide in him, and can never withdraw away." Nay, this is the very point to be proved. So that you now, immediately and directly, beg the question.

These

"The other sort of branches are such as are in Christ only by profession: who get into churches, and so are reckoned in Christ, and these in time wither away. never had any life, grace, or fruitfulness from him." Surely you do not offer this by way of argument! You are again taking for granted the very point to be proved.

But you will prove, that "those are branches in Christ, who never had any life or grace from him, because the churches of Judea and Thessalonica are said to be in Christ, though every individual member was not savingly in him." I deny the consequence, which can never be made good, unless you can prove, that those very Jews or Thessalonians who never had any life or grace from him, are nevertheless said by our Lord, to be branches in him.

It remains, that true believers, who are branches of the true vine, may nevertheless finally fall.

LXXIII. Fifthly, Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly. For thus saith the Apostle Peter, "If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," the only possible way of escaping them,) "they are intangled again therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning," 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21.

But you say, 1. "Their knowledge was not an experi

mental knowledge." And how do you prove this? "Because had it been such, they could not have lost it." You are begging the question again.

You say, 2. Escaping the pollutions of the world, signifies no more than an outward reformation." How prove you that? You aim at no proof at all. But he that will grant it, may.

You say, 3. "These persons never had any change wrought upon them. They were no other than dogs and swine, not only before and after, but even while they outwardly abstained from gross enormities."

"I grant, that before and after that time, during which they "escaped the pollutions of the world," (or as St. Peter words it in his former Epistle, "The corruption that is in the world,") they might well be termed either dogs or swine, for their gross enormities. But that they deserved such an appellation during that time, I cannot grant without some proof.

It remains, that those who, by the inward knowledge of Christ, have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly.

LXXIV. Sixthly, Those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness, and the fruits of the Spirit, may nevertheless so fall from God, as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the writer to the Hebrews," It is impos sible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,-If they fall away, to renew them again to repent, ance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." m

Must not every unprejudiced person see,. the expressions here used are so strong and clear, that they cannot, without gross and palpable wresting, be understood of any but true believers ?

But the Apostle makes only a supposition, If they shall fall away ?"

The Apostle makes no supposition at all. There is no if in the original. The words are, Αδύνατον γαρ της απαξ φωτισθέντας-και παραπεσοντας. That is, in plain English, "It is impossible to renew again unto repentance those who were once enlightened, and have fallen away.”

It

"No. The words in the original lie literally thus. is impossible for those who were once enlightened,-and they falling away, to renew them again unto repentance: that is, should they fall away, which is in plain English, If they fall away."

Excuse me for speaking plain English here. "Shall a man lie for God?" Either you or I do; for I flatly aver, (and let all, that understand Greek, judge between us,) that the words in the original do not lie literally thus, And they falling away, (if so, they must be a αρailovlas, in the present tense; not xa αρacolas, in the indefinite,) but that they are translated, And have fallen away; as literally as the English tongue will bear.

Therefore here is no if in the case, no supposition at all, but a plain declaration of matter of fact.

LXXV. "But why do you imagine these persons were true believers?" Because all the expressions in their easy natural sense, imply it.

They were once enlightened: an expression familiar with the Apostle, and never by him applied to any but believers. So "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation,-The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling,-And what is the exceeding greatness of his power, to us-ward that believe," Eph. i. 17, &c. So again, "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 6.

66 Nay, they were enlightened, means only, they were baptized; or knew the doctrines of the gospel."

I cannot believe this, till you bring me a few passages

from St. Paul's writings, wherein that expression is evidently taken in either of these senses.

66

Again. They had tasted of the heavenly gift" (emphatically so called) "and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost." So St. Peter likewise couples them toge ther, Acts ii. 38, "Be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Whereby the love of God was shed abroad in their hearts, with all the other fruits of the Spirit.

The expression, they "had tasted of the heavenly gift," is taken from the Psalmist, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." As if he had said, Be ye as assured of his love, as of any thing you see with your eyes. And let the assurance thereof be sweet to your soul, as the honey is to your tongue.

“But this means only, they had some notions of remission of sins and heaven, and some desires after them. And they had received the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost." This you affirm; but without any colour of proof.

It remains, that those who "see the light of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ," and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and the fruits of the Spirit, may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. ⠀

LXXVI. Seventhly, Those who live by faith may yet fall from God, and perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the Apostle, "The just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him," Heb. x. 38. The just, (the justified person, of whom only this can be said) shall live by faith, even now shall live the life which is hid with Christ in God; and if he endure unto the end, shall live with God for ever. "But if any man draw back, saith the Lord, my soul shall have no pleasure in him;" that is, I will utterly cast him off, and accordingly the drawing back here spoken of, is termed in the verse immediately following, "drawing back to perdition.'

"But the person supposed to draw back, is not the same with him that is said to live by faith."

I answer, 1. Who is it then? Can any man draw back from faith, who never came to it? 2. But had the text been fairly translated, there had been no pretence for this objection. For the original runs thus:-O dixa EX WITEWS ζησεται" και εαν υποςειληται If Ο δικαιΘ., the just man that lives by faith (so the expression necessarily implies, there being no other nominative to the verb) draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

"But your translation too is inaccurate." Be pleased to shew me wherein ?

"I grant he may draw back; and yet not draw back to perdition." But then it is not the drawing back which is here spoken of.

"However, here is only a supposition, which proves no fact." I observe you take that as a general rule, Suppositions prove no facts. But this is not true. They do not always; but many times they do. And whether they do or not in a particular text, must be judged from the nature of the supposition, and from the preceding and following words.

"But the inserting any man into the text, is agreeable to the grammatical construction of the words." This I totally deny. There is no need of any such insertion. The preceding nominative suffices.

"But one that lives by faith, cannot draw back. For whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

This proves no more than that all who are glorified, are pardoned and sanctified first.

"Nay, but St. Paul says, 'Ye are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.'

Most sure, if you endure to the end. "Whosoever believeth in him" to the end" shall never die."

LXXVII. "But, to come more home to the point, I say, this text is so far from militating against perseverance, that it greatly establishes it,”