to the Scriptures, which every where attribute our justification to faith, as to allow, that our first justification is by faith alone. But what are we to understand by that faith by which this first justification is obtained? The Papists tell us, that it is an infusion of a new principle of grace and charity. The Socinians and Arminians (at least some of them) teach, that it is the To credere, or an assent to the Gospel revelation, which justifies, as it is an act of our own, and an instance of obedience to the divine command. Some of our more modern refiners upon this scheme, choose to define this faith, by which we obtain our first justification, to be a receiving Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and tell us, that a submitting to his government has as great a hand in our justification, as our relying upon his merit, or hoping for salvation on account of what he has done and suffered for us. I think, all of them agree in this, that faith justifies, as it is an assent to the truth of the Gospel, and an entrance upon a life of obedience. None of them suppose this first justification to be our acceptance with God as righteous, by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

Now, then, what room is there for this distinction? Is not faith, in this consideration of it, as much an act of obedience as any other point of conformity to the divine command, which we are capable of? and is it not supposed to justify us, as it is our subjection to the new law of grace, and as it is our first act of obedience? What then do they mean, by telling us of a first justification by faith alone, and of a secondary justification by works; when they

really intend, that the beginning, the progress, and the conclusion of our justification is by obedience only? This may easily be brought to a short and determinate issue. Either faith does justify us, as it is a work of ours, and an act of obedience; or it justifies us, as it is the means of our receiving Christ's righteousness, and having the same actually applied to us, for our justification and acceptance with God. There is no other way in which we can be supposed to be justified by faith. All the distinctions that the most exuberant fancies of men can light upon, are reducible to one of these two. Now, if the latter of these be assumed, the controversy is ended; we have a righteousness to plead that is sufficiently perfect, and that will stand us in stead; there is no need of our new obedience, in order to make up its defects, and procure a secondary justification. But if the former of these be assured, then our first justification is as truly by works as the second, 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 tenor 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 benefits 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 ;" and "the heirs of the promise." Thus the tenor of this covenant, when made with Adam, was, that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head." And thus when made with Abraham, it consisted of a promise, that "in him all the families of the earth should be blessed." 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 says "the inheritance God gave to Abraham by promise." And what is there that should make this inconsistent with 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 ?

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, Rev. xxii. 14. • 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.' Heaven is a recompense 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 thirtythird 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