receive the benefit of it? He is also represented as having "redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," Gal. iii. 13. And how can it

66

with any propriety be said, that believers are actually redeemed from the curse, when they are still under the curse, and must continue so until, by a course of sincere persevering obedience, they get themselves acquitted and justified? Or how could our blessed Saviour be made a curse for us, when neither our guilt was imputed to him, nor his sufferings were imputed to us? He might, indeed, upon this supposal, be said to suffer for our advantage and benefit: but he could not be made a curse for us, in our stead, when no curse due to us was laid upon him; nor we freed from any curse by his sufferings, without procuring our deliverance by our own sincere persevering obedience. He is likewise represented as our Surety, a Surety of a better testament," Heb. vii. 22. And has the Surety paid the debt, but the bond not cancelled, nor the debtor released from payment? Does Divine justice demand the payment of the debt in order to satisfaction, and the performance of the conditions in order to our justification, of both the Surety and the debtor? He is moreover represented as THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," Jer. xxiii. 6. And is said "to be made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," 1 Cor. i. 30. "He is our peace," Eph. ii. 14. But I know not how Christ can be ours for any of these purposes, unless, upon our receiving him by faith, these benefits are with him freely given us, actually imputed or imparted to us, and we considered as vested with them, and partakers of them. For instance, can Christ be our righteousness, and we, notwithstanding, have no righteousness that will justify us before God, till we have wrought out a righteousness

S

of our own, by a persevering course of sincere obedience? Can he be our peace, and we not be at peace with God upon our faith in him, until, by a course of sincere obedience, we are justified and interested in the Divine favour? The time would fail me, should I particularly insist upon all the various representations of Christ's redemption in scripture, and show that they are all directly repugnant to this scheme. I shall therefore mention but an instance or two more, and then submit it to your own serious reflection. We are said "to be justified by his blood,” and “ conciled to God by his death," Rom. v. 9, 10. But can we be justified by his blood, and yet justified by our own obedience? Are we reconciled to God by the death of Christ, and yet not reconciled to God, but by a continued progress of our own obedience? Dare you, sir, venture to attribute that to your own obedience, which is attributed by the Spirit of God to the blood and the death of Christ?

re

But perhaps you will make the same remarks upon what I have now offered, as you did upon my last, and tell me, that " your author does indeed suppose some conditions of our interest in the benefits procured by Christ for us; and do not they, who are of the other side of the question, also suppose our interest therein to be conditional? Do not they suppose faith to be the condition of our interest in Christ, and all the benefits he has purchased for us? Where, then, is the difference? Why is a conditional interest in the benefits purchased by Christ so very offensive in the one scheme, and so innocent and inoffensive in the other?"

In answer to this, you must allow me the freedom to remind you, that I have, in my former letters, largely and particularly shown you, that faith is no otherwise a condition of our interest in Christ, and the benefits

of his redemption, than a beggar's receiving an alms is a condition of his having the benefit of it; or than a condemned malefactor's accepting a free pardon is the condition of his reprieve from execution, and restoration to his prince's favour. And is there no difference between partaking of a free gift, on no other condition than a thankful acceptance, and having the offer of a favour on the condition of long-continued services, of very difficult and uncertain performance? Is there no difference between expecting justification from no righteousness of our own, but only from the righteousness of Christ received by faith, and our supposing this alone an insufficient foundation of confidence, and therefore looking to some righteousness of ours as the condition of our acceptance with God? The difference is just as great as between any other contradictory propositions. Upon the one supposal, Christ has performed all the proper conditions of our justification, and freely bestows the benefit, on our acceptance: whereas, upon the other supposal, Christ has not performed the conditions of our justification, but only procured for us the privilege to perform them ourselves. Upon the one supposal, we are justified on account of Christ's obedience; but on the other supposal, we are justified on account of our own obedience. Upon the one supposal, Christ has merited justification for us without works; but upon the other supposal, he has merited justification for us by our works. And, in fine, upon the one supposal, the first act of saving faith gives an immediate and continuing interest in the favour of God; but upon the other supposal, faith is but the introduction of that life of sincere obedience, which is properly the condition of our obtaining and enjoying the Divine favour.

It belongs now to you, sir, seriously and impartially

to reflect and consider, which opinion is most likely to be true: whether, that which renounces all confidence in the flesh, and proposes no condition of justification, but our hearty approbation and acceptance of, and dependence upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone, as the way wherein the glory of the righteousness, wisdom, love, and mercy of God is exalted, and sinful man justly debased, and brought to the foot-stool of an infinite Sovereign; or, that opinion, which denies this honour to the Redeemer's merits and to sovereign grace, and proposes our own performances and attainments as conditions of our justification and acceptance with God. I have now been showing you, that the former is the scripture representation of the case, and methinks any one that has had a just and sensible discovery of his own depravity and spiritual impotence, must know by experience that it is the only way in which he can entertain comfortable expectations of safety and happiness.

Another objection against this opinion is, that it is destructive of practical religion, subversive to a life of true holiness. Whatever sentiments we entertain, and whatever principles we espouse, we must yet remember, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord: and he that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself as he is pure. The doctrine of Christ is in all its parts a doctrine according to godliness. If it therefore appears, upon an impartial examination of this subject, that these principles of your author are inconsistent with, and repugnant to that holiness, which is a necessary qualification for the kingdom of heaven, there can no other argument be wanting against this scheme, to convince us, that it cannot be agreeable to Him "who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,

zealous of good works." But, lest I be misunderstood, and exposed to your censure for uncharitableness, Í would premise, that I cannot but hope that there are some who adhere to these principles, whose hearts are sounder than their heads, and who are truly holy in body and spirit, by a dependence very different from their profession. This is what may be reasonably hoped, not only from the exemplary lives of some who embrace these tenets, but from their prayers of a truly evangelical strain, which we ought to suppose the language of their hearts, and which we ought to hope will find audience with God, notwithstanding the error of their judgments.

I must nevertheless insist upon it, that such cannot be truly holy, whose hearts and lives are conformable to the principles I am opposing. Not all their religious purposes, promises, resolutions, reformations; not all their fastings, external mortifications, macerations of their bodies, vows, meditations, prayers, or other endeavours they may use, can be productive of holiness upon these principles. Men may, by such means, put some restraint upon their corruptions; they may, in a slavish manner, perform some hypocritical duties, and thereby may quiet their consciences, obtain a reputation among men, and entertain hopes of heaven; but they must yet remain strangers to any true love to God, delight in him, and conformity of heart and affections to him, wherein the essence of holiness consists. This will appear, from such considerations as these :-It is an incontestable truth, that we cannot be holy before we have a principle of holiness: that we cannot perform vital actions; without a source and principle of life. It is equally certain, that we naturally have not this principle of spiritual life; but "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his