fruitless to refer there our doubts as for one tossed on the waves, and driven with the winds, to cast anchor upon an object floating upon the same unsettled element. God never intended thus to divert his people from their immediate dependence upon himself. The church has, however, a security for infallibility that involves most precious encouragement as well as solemn responsibility. For the promise is, "Lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world,” and, while Christ dwells in his people by his Holy Spirit, they cannot fall into fatal error. This promise, however, does not prevent Christ from hiding his face and withdrawing the manifestations of his Spirit when his people forget and wander from him; but it is an assurance that in living near to God, exercising living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and holding habitual communion with the Holy Ghost, "they shall not be tossed about with every wind of doctrine," but be guided into all truth. If, however, his people become lukewarm, formal, and worldly, they must be exposed to error of every kind. What else can be expected when a church is left by the Spirit of God to the influence of that remaining corruption which is to be found in all hearts? Errors in doctrine have, indeed, been introduced for the most part through the vain speculations of the clergy. But it has only been so far as Christ's people have lost the savour of their piety, and ceased to live in close communion with God, so that the Holy Spirit, grieved by neglect, has for the time forsaken them. The apostle, therefore, while he exhorts Christians,"As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith," adds, "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men;" as if the two duties had a most intimate connection.

But even if, in the providence of God, a church at such a time is preserved from open heresy by means of its creed and its association with other more revived churches, the truth will be very apt to be dispensed in a vague, mutilated, or formal manner. The atmosphere of the congregation will almost inevitably affect the tone of the pulpit. As God has been pleased to put into the ministry men subject to like passions as others, there has seemed a tendency in this office at such times to descend from its high position of testifying for Christ, and become one for merely pleasing men. And, as the doctrines of the cross have always been found distasteful to the natural heart, hearers in whose hearts piety is low will not be conciliated without some compromise of the truth, or, at least, having it dispensed in a mere formal, heartless, professional manner, without life, without emotion, without power. Is not such a dispensation of it to be expected when God is not present with a church to guide his ministers into all truth, to enable them to discern its full meaning, and to bring them into sympathy with its grand purpose and aim? And who can estimate the influence of such a state of things? It is by the truth that men are converted, sanctified, and

saved, that they receive comfort and hope, and become partakers of the divine nature. If it is dispensed erroneously and formally, it will prove a savour of death unto death, instead of life unto life; instead of breaking, it will become the means of hardening, the heart; instead of increasing faith and peace and joy, of increasing unbelief and departure from God. And yet, if Christians do not live near to God and secure the influences of the Holy Spirit, this, which is the natural result of being left to their own carnal reasonings, speculations, and prejudices, will inevitably take place. No wonder that even an apostle entreated, "Brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may have free course and be glorified." Of what avail are churches, preaching, ordinances, or any instrumentalities, if they are not quickened and guided by the Spirit of God?

Further, the influence of a low state of piety will not only be felt in the dispensation of the truth, but also in the administration of government and discipline. There has ever been a tendency, especially during seasons of outward prosperity to the Christian interest, to break down the lines that separate the church and the world. Mingling, as Christians do, with the worldly in the domestic, social, and business intercourse of life, it is utterly impossible to preserve this distinction without much spiritual-mindedness. When Christians, alive to their religious interests, live near to God and hold habitual communion with him, they find no pleasure in the ways of the world, have no relish for its joys; for their affections are set upon things above, not on things on the earth. But when they have lost this lively frame, and their hearts have become lukewarm and their duties formal, then old corruptions will begin to prevail; they will long for the flesh-pots of Egypt, begin to mix with the people, and thus bring down the standard of true godliness to the level of earthly morality. Gross sins need not to be tolerated; only let a general laxness and lukewarmness come in, and in a little while the tone of Christian sentiment will be lowered, small improprieties will be overlooked, habits and practices inconsistent with an engaged Christian life winked at or feebly lamented, and neglects and indulgences and a degree of worldly conformity will be almost taken for granted and expected in church members.

Upon gross delinquencies and transgressions it is easy to bring discipline to bear. But there is a large portion of human conductsuch as we have just alluded to-that it is most difficult to reach by this means. We are, indeed, commanded not to suffer sin upon a brother; to reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering; to restore those overtaken with a fault. But this department of discipline, so important and valuable in itself, is absolutely inefficacious where the standard of Christian feeling and practice does not sustain it. It is like the execution of some laws in the commonwealth: if public sentiment does not uphold the officer, it is impossible for him to carry them out. How can discipline be brought to

bear upon many manifestations of conformity to the world in business, amusements, domestic arrangements, or upon many modes of spending the Sabbath, or cases of neglect of public and social means of grace, or instances of refusal to improve opportunities for doing good by personal labour or contributions of our substance to the cause of Christ? It is utterly impossible. No man has a right to judge his neighbour in many of these matters. But if a high standard of piety exists, delinquents will feel its influence and be constrained to do their duty or acknowledge their inconsistency. Who can conceive how injurious must be the influence of a low state of piety upon the discipline of the church, in the widest sense, including a general watch and care over its members, when the church relation has not only lost its power, but has become perverted so as to generate a standard most hurtful to her prosperity? What would be thought of many habits and much of the conduct of not a few members of our churches if they were in a truly revived state? How would such professors themselves feel as their lives were contrasted with really devoted Christians in their conversation, their attendance on the means of grace, their efforts to do good as they have opportunity, and to build up the Redeemer's kingdom in the world?

Have not all church members, then, who read these lines, reason to inquire, How is it in respect to the church to which I belong? Is the Spirit of God so with us that we have the pledge of being guided into all truth, and that the truth shall be sanctifying and saving; or have we so turned away from God that he has forsaken us and left us to erroneous or formal dispensations of his truth, cold and barren ordinances? Are we maintaining that high standard of piety which will tolerate no inconsistency of Christian walk, no undue worldly conformity, no sinful neglect of the means of grace, no refusal to do good as we have opportunity? or have we grown so cold and worldly-has the standard of piety become so depressedthat professors of religion may be grossly deficient in all these respects without even attracting the attention of the church? N. R. S.

SOME LOGICAL DIFFICULTIES

IN THE DOCTRINE

OF "FALLING FROM GRACE."*

TRUTH is always to be preferred to error. horted to "buy the truth and sell it not."

Hence we are ex

We arrive at truth by the aid of mental, verbal, or written propositions. The meaning of propositions is, therefore, a subject of

The writer undertakes to reduce to logical form what has often been asserted in the way of exposition. If, as the author believes, the proposition is found to be of universal application, it will be a sword to cut a knot which it is somewhat difficult to untie; but the handle of the sword may not suit every hand.-ED.

great interest to the inquirer after truth, and must necessarily claim his most serious and constant attention. The variety of propositions is great, and we do not design to speak of them in detail; we will confine our attention to one class only-hypothetical or conditional. There seems to be a wide-spread misapprehension of the nature and force of these, and consequently much of error, both in science and theology, resulting from it. Anxious personally to know the truth and remove from others a fruitful source of error, we wish in this paper to discuss the force of conditional propositions in reference to a single point in theology. This point is the doctrine of "falling from grace." Many contend for the truth of this doctrine; and the proof-texts cited to sustain it are, in perhaps nine cases out of ten, propositions of this character. From this we argue that at least some, if not much, theological error is to be traced to the interpretation put upon these propositions, and especially that the chief dependence for the proof of this aforesaid doctrine is found in these. If, then, we can show that such propositions, rightly interpreted, give it no support, we shall do some service for the truth and relieve some minds from serious difficulty on this subject.

A conditional proposition consists of two categoricals connected by some conditional, causal, or disjunctive particle. The several members of such a proposition are the antecedent, the consequent, and copula, called the consequence. The force of the proposition is determined by the consequence. The antecedent is the subject, the consequent the predicate. The subject and predicate may both be true, and yet the proposition, as such, be false; or they may both be false, and yet the proposition, as such, be true. We interpret such propositions by two general laws:-1. The antecedent admitted as true, we may infer the consequent. 2. The consequent being denied, the antecedent may be denied. The first is the law for constructive, the second for destructive, conditionals. If the consequent be asserted and the antecedent denied, we can infer or conclude nothing.

With these general principles, let us examine some of these propositions as used to prove the doctrine of falling from grace. Take the one found in 2 Peter ii. 20:-" For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

What does it teach? We have in it two categoricals, the first of which is complex,-viz.: "They have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; they are again entangled therein and overcome." This is the antecedent. The consequent is, "the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." The copula or consequence, "if after." What do these propositions teach? That certain persons have escaped the pollutions of the world and again become entangled in them

and overcome? By no means. That their latter end is worse than the beginning? Certainly not. What then? Simply that a return to abandoned corruptions cannot coexist with continued well-being. The antecedent is not asserted as a separate independent truth, nor is the consequent; but the assertory proposition is that, where the antecedent exists, it will be followed by the consequent, a truth which none will deny, but very different from the direct or even indirect proof of the doctrine of falling from grace. To accomplish this object, it must be shown ab extra that the antecedent is true as a separate independent truth. If this can be shown, we will certainly admit the consequent. If the constructive form of the syllogism be adopted," But men do become entangled and overcome by the pollutions of the world from which they have escaped,"-we reply, This is mere assertion, not proof, and rejoin by the destructive, "But they do not; therefore their last state is not worse than the first." The fallacy is based upon a mistake of the assertory proposition of the apostle; it is a different conclusion from that warranted or contemplated by the premises. The apostle asserts that certain things cannot coexist; the argument in question assumes, in and as the minor, the truth of the antecedent, which needs to be proved.

The fallacy may be thus stated: for the major we take, Whoever shall be entangled and overcome by the pollutions of the world, after having escaped them, will have their last end worse than the first.

Men may thus be overcome; therefore, their last end is worse than the first.

Any one acquainted with the forms or force of the syllogism cannot but see that the middle term here needs to be proved. The difference between this and the apostle's argument is very clear. The major with him, if expressed, would be, Nothing which would make a man's last end worse than his beginning can coexist with his safety or prosperity.

To be entangled and overcome by the pollutions of the world after having escaped them, &c. would have this effect; therefore, these two things cannot coexist. The doctrine of falling from grace assumes its own truth in the minor. The argument of the apostle simply declares the disagreement between the terms, and the conclusion follows of course :-they cannot coexist.

But it may be replied, Does not the minor term of the apostle admit or imply the possibility of the thing? Not by any logical necessity. Conditionals do not always involve either the possibility or probability as independent truths of either antecedent or consequent. They may be, as already stated, both true, and yet the proposition or thing asserted of them wholly false; or they may be both false, and yet the proposition be true.

If a man is a biped, he must be rational. Here both antecedent and consequent are true, and yet the proposition false. If