and all our hopes? And what will become of our fouls to all eternity? I must confess, Sir, I could fee nothing before me but horror and defpair, if I had no better foundation of confidence and hope towards God, than my own righteousness.

Every experienced Chriftian muft acknowledge, that the chief comfort of a religious life flows from the lively actings of love to God in Chrift. But how can there be the comfort of love, when at the best we are in an awful fufpence, whether God be our friend, or our ene my? What grounds of horror (inftead of the pleafing exercife of love) muft we conftantly experience, while we are afraid we have an infinite enemy to deal with? What ftrangers, in this cafe, muft we be to the joy, which flows from a refreshing view, that this God is our God, and will be our guide even to death, and our portion for ever? How unacquainted muft we be with the fublime pleasures of communion with God, while we approach his presence under fuch an uncertain profpect of his favour, and under grounds for prevailing fear of an eternal feparation from him? And what aggravates the cafe is, that this not only now is, but muft continue to be our dark and difconfolate circumftance, as long as we live, if we remain under the governing influence of thefe principles I am impleading.

.

I may add to this that a chearful progrefs in all Gofpelholiness is neceffary to our true comfort and happiness, while we are here in this vale of tears. In keeping of God's commands there is a great reward. This is our rejoicing, the teftimony of our confciences, that in fimplicity and godly fincerity, not by flefbly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our converfation in the world. But I have fhewn you already, that this fcheme I am oppofing, affords no principle of new obedience, allows no foundation for a comfortable progrefs in the divine life. Here is no certainty of forgivenefs to be obtained: And therefore no delightful incentive to the mortification of our lufts and corruptions. Upon this plan, we are in perpetual danger of the curfe of the law, on account of our defects: and there is therefore no room for that pleasure, which would otherwife be found in running

the way of God's commands. Here can be no affured confidence in the divine affiftance or acceptance, no abfolute affiance in the riches of God's free grace in Chrifts and therefore nothing to melt the heart and confcience into love and fubjection; nothing to inflame our affec tions, and fill us with gratitude to God for blefling us with all spiritual bleffings, in heavenly things in Chrift Jefus nothing to excite us to live to the praife of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. The principles of the fcheme you propose, are flavish; and the obedience muft be of the fame kind with the principles from whence it flows. And confequently we must be utter frangers to that love, delight and fatisfaction, which children might find in the fervice of their heavenly Father, fo long as our obedience is thus excited from fear and constraint; or at best only from fuch uncertain hopes, as wholly depend upon our own righteoufnefs, as the condition of acceptance. Bleffed be God, the Gospel teaches us a more pleafant and delightfulreligion, the fervice of love, and the obedience of faith, which is truly its own reward.

And now, Sir, fuffer me fomething freely to expoftulate with you on this fubject. Do not you know, that the doctrine which you and your author plead for, is (fubftantially) the fame with the popish doctrine up. on the head of remiffion of fins, and acceptance with God: and that this very doctrine was one of the great. eft occafions of our glorious reformation from popery? Read, Sir, the many elaborate treatifes written by our firft reformers, and you'll find this doctrine fet in its proper light. You'll find all your author's cavils, fhifts, and evafions juflly expofed; all his arguments diflindly anfwered; and the dangerous error ftript of all that plaufible drefs, with which it now again makes its ap pearance. You will find, that the doctrine of juftifica tion was efteemed by all our excellent reformers, as well as by Luther, Articulus ftantis aut cadentis ecclefiæ, the article by which the church muft either ftand or fall.. And hall we again build up thofe things, which that glorious army of martyrs deflroyed? Shall we again evive popery in one of its most confiderable branches? not this to open the door to other popifh delufions

and practical errors, as penances, pilgrimages, a monaftick life, celibacy, and other aufterities, to fupply the defects of our fincere obedience, and patch up a righteoufness of our own to juftify us? I wish there were not too much occafion given for this apprehenfion, by fome in the present times, who would fain be reputed Prote ftants. You'll perhaps think me too fevere in this difcourfe; but fearch into the caufe, as I have done, and you'll find it otherwife.

And why must this hydra be digged out of its grave, and revived? What advantage can be hoped for by this fcheme? Were this doctrine true, would not fincere obedience, done from a principle of fpiritual life and ho linefs, and a dependance upon Chrift alone, to do all in us and for us, and to recommend us to the divine favour, be accepted of God, as well as if it had been done in our own ftrength, and with a view to establifh our own righteousness? Will Chrift reject us at laft, for doing too .much honour to his infinite merit, and to the rich and free grace of God in him? What if you fhould find your reafoning falfe and deceitful, when it comes to the great trial? Dare you venture your eternity upon it, that in this cafe you cannot be deceived? If the reformation in general, and the most excellent men for learning, fagacity and piety, that the reformed churches could ever boast of, fhould be found on the fide of truth at the day of judgment, in determining, that we cannot be juftified' on the foot of a moderated covenant of works, or the eafy terms you plead for, what will become of all thofe, who have built their eternal hope on that foundation; not only notionally, I mean, but practically!

But I have outgone my intended limits; and fhall therefore only add (after my hearty prayers, that your hope may be built upon a fure foundation), that I am with great refpect,

Sir,

Yours, &c.

+ See, for inftance, Mr. Law's Chriftian Perfection, and Serious Call. Books, that would be defervedly ef teemed and prized, were it not for this popish taint.

LETTER XIV. Wherein the notion of a FIRST Juftification by FAITH, and a SECONDARY Juftification by fincere OBEDIENCE, is difcuffed and confuted.

SIR.

YOU

YOU must conclude, I have spent my time but idly, if I fhould be unacquainted with your author's ⚫ meaning; and not fully understand in what fenfe he • supposes our fincere obedience to be the condition of our juftification.' It is fcarcely poffible, that he should with any appearance of plausibility offer any thing new in defence of these principles, or that has not been often advanced, and often refuted, long before either you or I were born. And in particular, what you now propofe is but the old popish doctrine new vampt; which has been repeatedly anfwered byall our old Proteftant writers. You tell me, Your author acknowledges, that our first juftification is by faith alone; that is, God ac. cepts us as being meet probationers for falvation upon our hearty affent to the truth of the Gospel, and our being heartily willing to take Chrift's yoke upon us, and obey him: and this is the juftification of which the • apostle Paul speaks, that it is by faith without the works of the law. But our fecondary juflification, or continued title to the favour of God, is by our works, or by a courfe of fincere obedience to the Gofpel. Of this the apostle James speaks, when he tells us, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Sir, You cannot be infenfible, that this plea is utterly inconfiftent with the evafions before offered, We are therefore now to hear no more of your former distinctions, that the apostle Paul refers to legal and not evangelical works, when he excludes all works from having any part in our juftification. We are to hear no more of the apoftle's referring to the ceremonial law when he opposes the law to grace, and tells us, that if righteoufnefs come by the law, then Chrift is dead in vain. You now acknowledge, that the justification, of which

the apostle Paul fpeaks, is by faith alone. All other pleas for the scheme, which I oppole, muft confequently be given up, and it must be put upon this fingle iffue. I fhall now therefore proceed to confider, whether this foundation will bear the weight, which you are putting upon it.

It is worthy of confideration, that there is nothing of this new doctrine, of a first and fecondary justification, to be found in the fcriptures. I look upon it as an arbitrary diftinction, coined to ferve a purpose, and to help out a tottering fcheme, which could no other way be supported. The apostle Paul, it is true, fpeaks of our juftification in one refpect, and the apostle James in another, as I have formerly obferved to you: but each of them retain one invariable view of their fubject, and continue the fame idea of the juftification about which they treat. There is not a word spoken by either of them, of a firft and second, of an original and additional juftification. Indeed the fcriptures know nothing at all of this distinction. The children of God learn nothing of it from their own experience. And you must pardon me, Sir, if I muft demand fome better foundation of my eternal hope, than the fubtile inventions of fuch men, who would eftablish and vindicate their principles by new and unfcriptural doctrines of religion, which have no foundation at all, but their own teeming imagination. This is the common fource of all the errors, which obtain among us. Men of learning and parts, fufficiently apprehenfive of their own capacities, instead of an humble fubjecting their reason to the wifdom of God in his word, are firft for forming fchemes, which appear to them most reasonable; thefe they take for principles; and then they must force fome construction or other upon the most oppofite texts of scripture, and invent fome arbitrary distinctions, to obviate the difficulties, that lie in their way. This is plainly the cafe before us. It does not look reasonable to the Papists, to the Socinians, to the Arminians, and to the Neonomians, that our obedience fhould be wholly excluded a part in our juftification. It is true, the fcripture does in multitudes of most plain and familiar expreffion, in the most exprefs and strongest language, utterly exclude