outward ordinances at all, than to practise them on these Gospeldestroying principles, to the ruining of our souls."

Friend. What scripture do you produce for this?

Ant.-I wish you would not build so much upon the letter: it is your letter learning too, makes you talk of inherent righteousness.

Friend. Do you say then, a believer has no inherent righteousness? Ant. That I do. I say, "God will save us to the utmost, without any righteousness or holiness of our own." To look for inherent righteousness, "is to deny the Spirit, and trample under foot the blood of the covenant. Believers have not any inherent righteousness in them. Our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ."

Friend. Now, I believe that Christ by his Spirit works righteousness in all those to whom faith is imputed for righteousness.

Ant." By no means; all our righteousness is in Christ. It is wholly imputed, not inherent. We are always righteous in Christ, but never righteous in ourselves."

Friend. Is not, then, every believer righteous or holy?
Ant.-Doubtless; but he is holy in Christ, not in himself.

Friend. Does he not live a holy life; and is he not holy of heart?
Ant. Most certainly.

Friend. Is he not, by plain consequence, holy in himself?

Ant.-No, no, in Christ only; not holy in himself: he has no holiness at all in himself.

Friend. Has he not in him the love of God, and of his neighbour; yea, the whole image of God?

holiness.

Ant. He has. But this is not Gospel Friend.--What vain jangling is this! You cavil at the name, while you allow the whole thing I contend for. You allow, a believer is holy both in heart and life. This is all I mean by inherent righteousness or holiness.

Ant. But I tell you, this is not Gospel holiness. Gospel holiness is faith.

Friend. Stand to this, and you still give up the whole cause. For, on your supposition, I argue thus:-Faith is holiness or righteousness: But faith is in every believer: Therefore, holiness or righteousness is every believer.

in

Ant.-Alas, alas! I pity you. Take my word for it, you are in utter darkness. You know nothing yet of true faith; nothing at all about it. Friend.-Will you then be so kind as to explain it to me? Ant. I will. I will make it as clear as the sun. I will show you the very marrow of that doctrine which "I recommend, with all my heart, to all, as the most wholesome doctrine of Jesus Christ.

"Many think they know it, when they have but crude, carnal, indigested notions of it. And they imagine we rest contented with such a faith as theirs; namely, that Christ has died to ward off the wrath of God, to purchase his favour, and, as an effect of that, to obtain certain inherent qualities and dispositions, to make us meet for the kingdom of heaven. Was this our faith, it would be requisite to seek after this sort of sanctification, and not to be at rest, without we felt something of it. But, on the contrary, we believe that the blood shed upon the cross has

put away and blotted out all our sins, and that then there was an everlasting righteousness brought in: by believing which, our hearts and consciences are made as perfectly clean as though we had never sinned. In this consists true purity of soul, and not in habitual qualities. And whoso are thus made pure and perfect are delivered from the dominion of sin. They do also bear forth the fruits of righteousness, not in order to become more holy, but because they are perfectly holy, through faith. It is true, we have still the vile, sinful body, which continually disposes the mind to evil. But the blood of Jesus makes us free from sin, and, as it were, destroys the connection."

Friend. Of all the accounts I have ever yet heard, this is the most "crude and indigested." But let us go over it step by step. You first described what you judge a false faith, viz. "A faith that Christ hath died, to ward off" (or appease) "the wrath of God, and to purchase his favour;" (suppose, for me, a lost sinner ;)" and as an effect of that," (of God's favour bought with the blood of Christ,) "to obtain" for me "certain inherent qualities and dispositions, to make me meet for the kingdom of heaven." Now, how do you prove this to be a false faith? Ant.-Easily enough; for men "are obliged to support it by frames, feelings, and works."

Friend. And did not you allow, just now, that whoever has true faith is "holy both in heart and life?" that he has in him "the love of God and of his neighbour; yea, the whole image of God?"

Ant. I did. And what then?

Friend. Why then you have abundantly confuted yourself: for you have allowed, that true faith not only cannot be supported, but cannot exist, no, not for one moment, without "certain inherent qualities and dispositions," (viz. the love of God and of all mankind,) " which makes us meet for the kingdom of heaven." You have allowed, that true faith cannot subsist without a holy frame of heart, a continuance in good works, and a feeling sense of God's love to me, a sinner.

Ant. I hear you. Go on.

Friend. You said next, "Was this our faith, it would be requisite to seek after this sort of sanctification." From your own words it appears, that this is your faith, if you have any true faith at all. See then that you" seek after this sort of sanctification," viz. the love of God and of your neighbour. For if you can be at rest, though you feel nothing of it, it is plain your heart is not clean, but hardened.

Ant.-You may say what you please. You know no better.

Friend. You went on: "On the contrary, we believe that the blood shed upon the cross has put away and blotted out all our sins." Why, who believes otherwise? If you mean only, that Christ then put away the punishment of all our sins, who believe in him; what a marvellous discovery is this! I pray, whom doth this arguing reprove?

Ant. It reproves you, who deny that "an everlasting righteousness was then brought in."

Friend.--I do not deny it: no more than you understand it. But I ask, in what sense was it "brought in?" What was it brought into? Was it then first brought into the world? You cannot say this, without saying that all who went out of the world before that hour were lost. Or was it brought into the souls of believers? Then believers have an

inward or inherent righteousness. You had better, therefore, let this text alone. It will do no service at all to your cause.

Ant.-I see plain you are as blind as a beetle still. I am afraid your head-knowledge will destroy you. Did not I tell you, "Our hearts and consciences are made perfectly clean by our believing; and that in this consists true purity of soul, and not in habitual qualities? Thus we are made perfectly holy." And though "the vile, sinful body continually disposes the mind to evil," yet "the blood of Christ makes us free from sin, and, as it were, destroys the connection."

Friend.-Destroys the connection of what? I doubt you have stumbled upon another word which you do not understand. But whether you understand yourself or no, it is sure I do not understand you. How can my mind at the same time it is " continually disposed to evil," be "free from sin, perfectly clean, perfectly holy?"

Ant. O the dulness of some men! I do not mean really holy, but holy by imputation. I told you plainly, the holiness of which we speak is not in us, but in Christ. "The fruits of the Spirit, (commonly called sanctification,) such as love, gentleness, longsuffering, goodness, meekness, temperance, neither make us holy before God, nor in our own consciences."

Friend. I know these cannot atone for one sin. This is done by the blood of Christ alone: for the sake of which, God forgives and works these in us by faith. Do I reach your meaning now?

Ant.-No, no; I wonder at your ignorance. I mean, "we are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispositions: but being made pure and holy in our consciences, by believing in Christ, we bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness." Now, I hope, you understand me.

Friend. I hope not. For if I do, you talk as gross nonsense and

contradiction as ever came out of the mouth of man.

Ant.--How so?

Friend. You say, "We are not made good or holy by any inward qualities or dispositions." No! are we not made good by inward goodness? (observe, we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification;) holy, by inward holiness? meek, by inward meekness? gentle, by inward gentleness? And are not all these, if they are any thing at all," inward qualities or dispositions?"

Again: Just after denying that we have any inward holiness, you say, "We are made holy in our consciences, and bear forth, inwardly and outwardly, the fruits of holiness." What heaps of self-contradictions are here!

Ant. You do not take me right. I mean, these inward dispositions "are not our holiness. For we are not more holy, if we have more love to God and man, nor less holy, if we have less."

Friend.-No! Does not a believer increase in holiness, as he increases in the love of God and man?

Ant.-I say, No. "The very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified. And he is neither more nor less holy, from that hour, to the day of his death. Entire justification and entire sanctification are in the same instant. And neither of then thenceforth capable either of

increase or decrease.

Friend.

I thought we were to grow in grace!

Ant. "We are so; but not in holiness. The moment we are justified, we are as pure in heart as ever we shall be. A new-born babe is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference."

Friend. You do well to except against Scripture and reason. For till a man has done with them, he can never swallow this. I understand your doctrine now, far better than I like it. In the main, you are talking much and saying nothing; labouring, as if you had found out the most important truths, and such as none ever knew before. And what does all this come to at the last? A mere, empty" strife of words." All that is really uncommon in your doctrine is a heap of broad absurdities, in most of which you grossly contradict yourselves, as well as Scripture and common sense. In the meantime, you boast and vapour, as if "ye were the men, and wisdom should die with you." I pray God to "humble you, and prove you, and show you what is in your hearts!"

A SECOND DIALOGUE

BETWEEN

AN ANTINOMIAN AND HIS FRIEND.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.

FRIEND.--Well met! You have had time to consider.

you of our last conference?

ROMANS iii, 31.

What think

ANTINOMIAN.-I think, "the giving of scandalous names has no warrant from Scripture." (Mr. Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 2.) Friend.-Scandalous names!

Ant.—Yes; you called me Antinomian. But" our Saviour bids me not return railing for railing." (Ib.)

Friend. St. Peter does, and that is all one. But how is that a scandalous name? I think it is properly your own; for it means, "one that speaks against the law." And this you did at that time very largely. But pray what would you have me call you?

Ant." A preacher of God's righteousness." (Ib. p. 1.)

Friend. What do you call me then?

Ant." A preacher of inherent righteousness." (Ib.)
Friend. That is, in opposition to God's righteousness.

So you

mean, a preacher of such righteousness as is inconsistent with that righteousness of God which is by faith.

Ant.-True: for "I plainly perceive you know but one sort of righteousness, that is, the righteousness of inherent qualities, dispositions, and works. And this is the reason why the language of the Holy Ghost seems foolishness unto you; even because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (Ib. pp. 11, 12.)

Friend. Are you absolutely sure that this is the reason why I do not think or speak as you do?

Ant. The thing itself speaks: "Thou hast forgotten the Lord, and

hast trusted in falsehood. Therefore, saith the Lord, I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Ib. p. 1.)

Friend.-Peremptory enough! But you will "not return railing for railing!" so out of mere tenderness and respect, you pronounce me a "natural man," and one who "hath forgotten the Lord, and" hath "trusted in falsehood!"

Ant. And so you are, if you do not believe in Christ. ask you one question: Do you believe that "Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself?"

Friend.-I do.

Ant. But in what sense?

Pray let me appeared, to

Friend. I believe he made, by that one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. And yet he hath not "done all which was necessary for the" absolute, infallible, inevitable, "salvation of the whole world." If he had, the whole world would be saved; whereas, "he that believeth not shall be damned."

Ant.-But is it not said, "He was wounded for our transgressions, and with his stripes we are healed?' And is he not the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world?' (p. 4.)

Friend. Yes. But this does not prove that he "put an end to our sins before they had a beginning!" (İb.)

Ant. O ignorance! Did not our sins begin in Adam?

Friend.--Original sin did. But Christ will not put an end to this before the end of the world. And, as to actual, if I now feel anger at you in my heart, and it breaks out in reproachful words; to say Christ put an end to this sin before it began, is a glaring absurdity.

Ant.--But I say, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. He hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And St. Peter says, "Who his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree."

Friend. To what purpose do you heap these texts together? to prove that Christ "put an end to our sins" before they had a beginning? If not, spare your labour; for they are quite foreign to the present question.

Ant. However, that is not foreign to the present question, which you said the other day, viz. that "Christ has only redeemed us from the punishment due to our past transgressions." (lb.)

Friend. I neither said so nor thought so. You either carelessly or wilfully misrepresent my words. On your quoting that text, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law," I replied in these terms: "What is this to the purpose? This tells me that Christ hath redeemed us (all that believe) from the curse or punishment justly due to our past transgressions of God's law. But it speaks not a word of redeeming us from the law, any more than from love or heaven." (First Dialogue, p. 71.)

Ant.-Past transgressions! "Then who must redeem us from those which are to come, since there remains no more sacrifice for sin ?" (Cudworth's Dialogue.)

Friend. The same Jesus Christ, by the same merit of that one sacri