Section 1181
VI. The doctrine of Perseverance is next introduced into the dialogue; and the writer of it
1. Hopes “that every truly good man will persevere in his goodness; but cannot say it is impossible for a righteous man to turn from his righteousness, or for one that has tasted the heavenly gift, and has partook of the holy Ghost, to fall away; else, what need of so many cautions given to persons and churches: besides, David and Peter did apostatize and fall away as well as Judas.” [5507] To which I answer; it is well this author has entertained any hope of a truly good man’s persevering in his goodness; but why not believe it? since it is promised, that the righteous shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger. (Job 17:9) The apostle Paul was confident of this very thing, and so may we, that he which hath begun a good work in the saints, will perform it until the day of Christ. (Philippians 1:6) A righteous man, one that is only so before men, and in his own apprehensions, who trusts to and depends upon his own righteousness for justification before God, such an one as is described in the 18th and 33rd chapters of Ezekiel; such a righteous man, I say, may indeed turn from his own legal righteousness to an open course of sin, and die and perish eternally. But this is no proof of a truly righteous man, one that is made so by the obedience of Christ, who has a principle of grace wrought in him, in consequence of which, he lives soberly, righteously and godly, turning from his righteousness, and falling into sin, so as to be lost foreverse For, should this be, how could the righteousness by which he is justified be called an everlasting one, as it is in Daniel 9:24 ? Nor could it be said, with truth, that whom God justified, them he also glorified, Romans 8:30. So, a man who has only a taste, a superficial knowledge of the heavenly gift, and has partook of the holy Ghost, either of the ordinary or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, may fall away, so as not to be renewed again to repentance; but this is no instance of a man’s falling away, who has truly eat the flesh and drank the blood of Christ by faith, and has been made a partaker of the special and internal grace of the Spirit of God. The cautions given to persons and churches to watch and pray, left they enter into temptation, to hold fast, to continue in well doing, etc. are not arguments against, but means which the Spirit of God makes use of to secure the perseverance of the saints. Besides, though true believers cannot fall from grace totally and finally; yet inasmuch as they may fall so as to wound their own consciences, stumble others, and dishonor the name of God, there is room and reason for such cautions. Though David and Peter fell, yet not as Judas did, which is suggested; otherwise, why are they put together? Judas fell from a profession of Christ, and from his apostleship, but not from the grace of God, which he never had. David and Peter fell into great sins, but not totally and finally; there was a principle of true grace still in them, which was revived and excited by the Spirit of God, whereby they were enabled to turn from their iniquity, and do that which was right. “But, says this man, [5508] as it was possible for them to fall into sin, mortal sin; so it was possible for them to have died in the sin they had sinned, and how they would have fared in that case, he leaves us to judge.” One would be tempted to conclude from this passage, that our Churchman is rather a member of the church of Rome, than of the church of England; since he seems to give into the popish distinction of sin, into mortal and venial, otherwise, why should he be so careful to explain sin, by mortal sin? Is not every sin mortal, that is to say, deserving of death? And though it was possible for David and Peter to fall into mortal sins, sins deserving of death, as they did; yet it was not possible they should die in them, since it is the will of God that none of his beloved ones, as David and Peter were, should perish, but should come to repentance; and since Christ undertook to die for their sins, and their sins were actually pardoned for Christ’s sake.
2. Under this head, is brought in the doctrine of God’s seeing no sin in his people, as he looks upon them through Christ, and as clothed with his righteousness; which is represented as “a doctrine immoral and absurd, unworthy of God, and shocking to a pious mind.” [5509] But why should it be thought to be so, when it is expressly asserted in the sacred writings? He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel. (Numbers 23:21) With respect to the attribute of God’s omniscience, it is freely allowed, that God sees all persons and things just as they are; he sees the sins of David and Peter, and he sees the sins of all professors of religion, even of his own people; and, in a providential way resents them, and chastises them for them, though he does not impute them to them, or punish them for them. But with respect to the article of Justification by Christ’s righteousness, and pardon by his blood, God sees no sin in his people; their sins are covered from the sight of justice, they are all discharged, forgiven, blotted out, and done away; so that when they are sought for, there shall be none, and they shall not be found. (Jeremiah 50:20) Now, as this doctrine does not impeach the omniscience of God, and perfectly accords with his justice, which is satisfied by the blood and righteousness of Christ, it cannot be absurd and unworthy of God; and since it leaves room for, and supposes God’s resentment of sin in his people, and his chastisement for it, it cannot be an immoral one, or shocking to a pious mind.
3. The absolute and unconditional promises of the covenant, mentioned in Jeremiah 31:32, 33 and Ezekiel 36:26, are produced in favor of the saints’ perseverance; whereas they belong to the doctrine of efficacious grace in conversion, and under that head should have been placed and considered: but this author is pleased to make his Baptist say anything which he thinks fit, that he may make him appear weak and ridiculous, and himself a match for him. Of this conduct, his whole Dialogue is a proof. The prophetic texts usually brought in favor of the final perseverance of the saints, are, Isaiah 54:10 and chap. 59:21, 40, Hosea 2:19, which this writer was either ignorant of, or perhaps did not care to mention them, nor meddle with them, as furnishing out arguments in proof of this doctrine beyond his capacity to reply to.