and the whole is by obedience only. Much more fair and ingenuous would it therefore be, for the abettors of these principles to speak out, and tell us plainly, that we are justified only by works, and that faith has nothing to do in our justification, but as it is our own work, and an act of obedience; than thus to endeavour to hide the deformity of their scheme, as contrary to the whole tenour of the gospel, by the paint and varnish of this plausible, but groundless distinction.

If we should proceed to consider the nature of their secondary justification, and the obedience by which it is obtained, there will appear to be as little foundation for this new distinction from thence as from the former view. Will every act of our sincere obedience justify us? or must it be a progress of obedience to the end of our lives? If the former, we have not only a first and second, but a thousand-fold justification. If the latter, we can have no justification at all so long as we live, and have therefore very little reason to expect it after we are dead. For, as death leaves us, judgment will find us; as I have observed to you in another letter. Should you suppose that our justification is progressive, and bears proportion to our sanctification, you must then allow, that we cannot be completely justified till we are completely sanctified, which we are not to expect in this life. Should we suppose we shall be justified in our expiring moments, just as we are breathing our last, even this will be before our obedience is finished, or our sanctification perfected ; and therefore there can be no more reason assigned for it, at that period, either from scripture or the nature of things, than there could have been perhaps a thousand times before. So that in whatever view we consider the case, this distinction, and the whole scheme founded on it, is a mere scene of confusion, in

the highest degree repugnant both to scripture and

reason.

And now I am ready to attend to your reasoning, in favour of these principles.

"I must acknowledge," you say, "that we are justified upon covenant terms. Now, a covenant must have conditions, to be fulfilled by both parties; and consequently the benetfis of the covenant must depend upon the performance of those conditions, and be suspended when the conditions are violated: whence it is necessary to suppose, that there are some continuing conditions required of us, in order to our complete justification."

There is no need to debate with you the propriety of the word conditions in this case, because it may be used in a sound sense. But I know nothing in the nature of any covenant, except a covenant of works, that makes such conditions as you speak of necessary to it. Whereas, if you consider the covenant of grace in all the exhibitions of it, it is a covenant of promise, as styled, Eph. ii. 12. Thence those who are interested in this covenant are called "the children of the promise," Rom. ix. 8. And "the heirs of promise," Heb. vi. 17. Thus the tenour of this covenant, when made with Adam, was, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, Gen. iii. 15. And thus when made with Abraham, it consisted of a promise, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3. In neither of these cases was there any condition added; it was barely a declaration of mercy to guilty sinners. And yet the apostle expressly calls this a covenant, which was confirmed of God in Christ, and "the inheritance God gave to Abraham by promise," Gal. iii. 17, 18. And what is there that should make this inconsistent with

says,

the nature of a covenant? Cannot you, sir, covenant with a beggar, to bestow upon him what treasure you please, upon the only condition of his thankful acceptance? Cannot a prince covenant with his rebel subjects to pardon them and receive them into his favour, upon the only condition of their acknowledging his sovereignty, and accepting his pardon? Would not this be truly and formally a covenant, and a covenant with strongest obligations to the performance, especially if confirmed by an oath, as the glorious God has condescended to confirm the covenant of grace? Heb. vi. 18.

You further argue, that "good works, and a life of sincere obedience, are absolutely necessary to salvation, without which no man can see the Lord, and therefore necessary to our justification, which is but our title to eternal life. And a right or title to eternal life is promised to obedience, Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city,' Rev. xxii. 14. Heaven is a recompence of reward. And God has particularly promised to his people, that he will proportion the dispensations of his grace, to the good or evil behaviour of his people, in the eighteenth and thirty-third chapters of Ezekiel."

Do you indeed, sir, suppose, that there is no difference between justification and sanctification? They are both, it is true, necessary to salvation: but are they both necessary in the same respects, in the same place, and order, and to the same ends? Are they both necessary, as what will equally entitle us to the continuing favour of God, to grace and glory hereafter? Holiness, or new obedience, is necessary, as a qualification, disposing or fitting us for the enjoyment of God, and possession of the heavenly glory. But how

will it follow from hence, that it is necessary, as the condition of our reconciliation to God, and of our being kept by his power, through faith unto salvation? How will it follow, that because we cannot be saved without holiness, that therefore we must be saved for it, and upon the account of it? It is necessary to an heir's possession of an estate, given him by his father's will, that he live and enjoy his reason: yet it is not his life and reason, but his father's donation, which gives him the title. Even so in the present case, our life and activity are necessary to our possessing the eternal inheritance; but it is the free grace of God in Christ which gives us the title. "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God,” Eph. ii. 8.

As to the scriptures cited by you, they are altogether impertinent to your purpose. You should prove, if you would confirm your point in view, that we are justified by works, and that our works give us the title to salvation. But all that you do prove by the cited scripture is, that good works are necessary to salvation; which is a truth equally allowed by both parties in the present controversy, and a consequence equally resulting from the principles of both.

The first text indeed which you quote does, in the english translation, seem to look something in your favour. But when read in the original, all that appearance is lost. I think it should thus be read, "Blessed are they who do his commandments, that they may have power, privilege, or liberty, for the tree of life." And it is on all hands granted, that none will ever have the power, privilege, or liberty, to enter the eternal inheritance, but those who are sanctified. The whole question is, from whence is this power derived? upon what title is this liberty or privilege

founded? whether only from the righteousness of Christ imputed, or from their sincere conformity to the pretended new law of grace? To this the text says nothing at all; nor can any argument be drawn from it, either on the one or the other side of the question. But heaven is a recompence of reward. What then? May not a reward be given, not of debt, but of mere grace, without any claim by personal merit, without any motive from covenant conditions performed, or any other incentive at all, but the mere goodness and kindness of the donor? How then does this prove the covenant conditions you are pleading for? Though eternal life be a reward, it is a reward of mere bounty and goodness, it is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. vi. 23.

What you argue from Ezek. xviii. and xxxiii. is as little to your purpose. This will evidently appear, if you consider, that these chapters have a special reference to a temporal salvation, from the calamities that Israel either felt or feared from the chaldean war. They were, part of them, already in captivity; and the remainder in dreadful expectation of the succeeding carnage and desolation, which made a swift approach upon them. They on this account complain of God's dispensations as unequal, and of their own misery as remediless. In answer to which complaints, God is pleased by the prophet to justify his dispensations towards them; and to let them know, that his dealings with them were according to their own doings; that their reformation would avert his judgments, but their apostacy and declension from his service would both heighten his displeasure and their punishment. That this was the design of the 18th chapter, appears evident from the whole foregoing context; where their dreadful destruction by the babylonians was expressly