their election and the certainty of their own salvation. It therefore addresses them as if there were real uncertainty in respect to their salvation; that is, as if, as individuals, they were not certain of salvation. It represents the salvation of real saints as certain, but represents many professed saints as having fallen and warns them against presumption and self-deception, on account of their profession and privileges and experience. It represents the danger of delusion as great, and exhorts them to examine and prove themselves, and see whether they are truly saints. The warnings, for the most part, found in the bible are evidently of this kind; that is, they assume that individuals may deceive themselves and presumptuously assume their own election and saintship and safety from their privileges, relations, and experiences. Inspiration, therefore, proceeds to warn them, assuming that they do not know the certainty of their own individual salvation. We shall by and by have occasion to examine some passages that will illustrate and confirm this remark.

There is, therefore, I apprehend no real difficulty in accounting for the manner in which the bible is written upon the supposition that the doctrine in question is true. But on the contrary it appears to me that the scriptures are just what might be expected if the doctrine were true. When we consider the nature of the certainty in all cases, and also that the great mass of professed christians have no certain revelation of their being real saints, that there is so much real danger of deception in regard to our own characters, and that so many are, and have been deceived; I say, when we consider these things, there can be no difficulty in accounting for the manner in which both professors and real saints are addressed in the word of God.

3. A third objection to this doctrine is, that if by the perseverance of the saints is intended that they live any thing like lives of habitual obedience to God, then facts are against it.

To this objection I reply, that by the perseverance of the saints, as I use these terms, is intended that subsequently to their regeneration, holiness is the rule in their lives, and sin only the exception. But it is said that facts contradict this. (1.) The case of king Saul is brought forward as an instance in point to sustain the objection.

To this I reply that it is far from being clear that Saul was ever a truly regenerate man. with his appointment to the throne of Israel, to have been He appears, in connexion the subject of divine illuminations in so far as to be much changed in his views and deportment, and as to have had another heart, in so much that he prophesied, &c.; but it is no where intimated that he became a truly regenerate man, a truely praying child of God. Similar changes are not unfrequently witnessed in men, and changes evidently brought about by the illuminations of the Holy Spirit, where there is no good reason to believe that the subjects of them were truly regenerated. From the history of Saul, subsequent to the change of which we are speaking, we gather absolutely nothing that looks like true piety. His case, therefore, can not properly be brought as an objection to the doctrine in question, for the plain reason that evidence is wanting that he ever was a saint. connection in which it is spoken of, was merely speaking His prophesying, as is evident from the fervently upon religious subjects. He was so much enlightened as to manifest for a time considerable excitement upon the subject of religion, and as to mingle with the schools of the prophets, and take an interest in their exercicises. But this was only similar to what we often witness, 47

when the end, and indeed when all the circumstances, duly considered, show clearly that true regeneration does not take place. Who has not seen men have, for the time being, another but not a holy heart?

(2.) It is said that David did not persevere in obedience in the sense that.obedience was his rule, and sin only the exception. To this I reply,

[1.] That it is not pretended that there is any doubt respecting the final salvation of David, king of Israel.

[2.] That David did not persevere in the sense above defined wants proof. His Psalms, together with his whole history, show that he was a highly spiritual man. He was an eminent type of Christ, and for a man in his circumstances was a remarkable saint. To be sure David practised polygamy, and did many things that in us, under the light of the gospel, would be sin. But it should be considered that David lived under a dispensation of comparative obscurity, and therefore many things which would now be unlawful and sinful, were not so in him. That David, with comparatively few exceptions, lived up to the light he had, can not be reasonably called in question. He is said to have been a man after God's own heart. I know this is said of him as a king, but I know also that as king this could not have been said of him unless he bad feared and served the Lord, and in the main lived up to the light with which he was surrounded.

Of Sol

(3.) It is also said that Solomon king of Israel did not persevere in the sense contended for in this discourse. omon I would say,

[1] That he was manifestly a type of Christ.

[2] That he at one period of his life, for how long a time it does not appear, fell into grievous backsliding, and appears to have in some sense practised idolatry.

[3.] His final apostacy has been inferred by some from the fact that idolatry was practiced in Israel after, as it has been supposed, he was reclaimed, and until the end of his life. The people were allowed to offer sacrifices and to burn incense in the high places.

To this I reply that the same was true also during the reign of several of the pious kings who succeeded him and is probably to be accounted for by the fact that neither Solomon nor his successors had, for a considerable time, political power or influence enough to abolish idolatry altogether. The people were greatly divided in their religious views and worship. Many were the priests and devotees of the groves

and high places, and multitudes of the high and more influential classes clave to their idols. It was a very difficult matter to put an effectual stop to idolatry, and perhaps was impossible in Solomon's day, and for a long time after. Solomon's idolatrous wives and concubines had doubtless exerted great influence to render idolatry popular with the people, and it was not until several generations had passed away, that the pious kings seem to have had sufficient political power to banish idolatry from the nation. Solomon's final apostacy then can not be inferred from the fact that idolatry continued to be practised in the nation until long after his death. There is no reason to believe that he continued to practice it himself. But,

[4.] I remark that from the writings of Solomon we may gather sufficient evidence that, as a general thing, he lived any other than a wicked life. His Ecclesiastes seems to have been written after he was reclaimed from backsliding, as appears from the fact that the book contains many statements of his views and experiences while in his wanderings from God. It appears to me that the book is inexplicable upon any other supposition. In his wanderings from God, as is common, he fell into great doubts and embarrassments in regard to the works and ways of God. He became skeptical, and in the book under consideration, he states the skeptical views that he had entertained. But the book, as a whole, contains conclusive evidence of piety at the time it was written. This probably will not be called in question.

Again, the Proverbs and Song of Solomon show that he was not only a pious man, but also, at least when they were written, a highly spiritual man. Especially is this true of his Song. The Proverbs were doubtless the result of deep and protracted reflection and observation, and were written. at intervals extending through his whole or nearly his whole reign. He was a man of great study and of great learning for his day. He must have spent much time in deep meditation and communion with God, and there is no greater mistake, as I apprehend, than to suppose that Solomon was an apostate, or that he lived any thing like a majority of his days in a state of backsliding from God. His profound wisdom, manifested on various occasions, and his history and writings altogether, when duly considered, render it extremely probable, if not certain, that his backsliding was but temporary, and that he was soon reclaimed. We have little else recorded of him than his public life, except what is contain

ed in his own writings. Should we judge of him only by his recorded history, separate from his writings, we might infer that he lived, at least for a long time, in sin, but from his writings we must infer that his life as a whole was one of deep thought, much profound meditation upon God and divine things, much research into the works and ways and government of God, both moral and providential, and of much spirituality. His practice of polygamy on so large a scale, and many other things that appear in his life were in the substance and principle of them common to the most pious men of that age and nation. Solomon's case, when duly considered, can not disprove the doctrine under consideration. Many things in him that shock us, might have been consistent with his living in a state of acceptance with God.

4. Observation, it is said, conflicts with the doctrine in question. So far as human observation can go, I admit that this is so; that many persons seem to be born again and to run well for a time, and afterwards fall, and apparently live and die in sin. But it should be remarked that observation can not be conclusive upon this subject, because we can not certainly know that any of the cases just alluded to are real conversions to God: Hence the objection fails of conclusiveness. Were it certainly known that such persons were truly regenerated, and that afterwards they fall away and live lives of sin, and die in that state, it would follow that the doctrine, at least in the form in which I have stated it, can not be true. But this is not and can not be certainly known by observation. If it shall be found to be true, when we come to the examination, that the bible plainly teaches the doctrine in question in the form in which I have stated it, it must follow of course that observation can not disprove it, for the reason that it is not a question that lies within the reach of observation, in such a sense as to admit of certainty or of any such kind or degree of evidence as to shake the sure testimony of the bible.

5. But an appeal is also made to consciousness to overthrow this doctrine. It is said that the real saints, at least in some instances, know themselves to have lived a great part of their lives in sin, and even by far the greater part of their days subsequent to regeneration.

This objection or assertion may be answered substantially as was the last. It is true indeed that the saints may know themselves to have been regenerated, and it is also true that many may think they know this when they are deceived.