and accordingly he that can make no wrong judgment of things, will judge and esteem him to be as he is : fo that the man muft live and die unjustified, and appear at the bar of Chrift in the same state.

To fpeak of an imperfect or defective state of juftification, seems to be a moft egregious trifling in this awful concern. We either are juftified, or we are not; either God does pronounce us righteous, or he does not. Now, if he does, we are free from guilt, and fully accepted of him; but if he does not, we are under guilt, and a sentence of condemnation. There can be no medium, no middle state between that of juftification and that of condemnation. However, were it even granted, that we might be imperfectly juftified, in proportion to our conformity to this fuppofed new law, we must at the best live and die but imperfectly juftified: and (as I before obferved) must appear at the bar of Chrift in the fame ftate in which we die; and confequently be but imperfectly juftified for ever, without fome further remedy be provided beyond the grave. Thus, this doctrine of juftification upon the foot of perfonal obedience to a new law, is better adapted to a Popish purgatory, than to the Proteftant profeffion and hope.

I would again enquire, whether it be poffible in the nature of things, that we may have any fincere obedience to this new law of grace, before we are juftified; and confequently whether it is poflible that we may be juftified by fincere obedience, before we have any acting of gracious fincerity, or any true obedience at all? Faith indeed does precede our juftification, in order of nature; but not in time. There is no moment of time, where. in a man is a true believer, and yet not justified before God: and therefore, there cannot be a moment of time for faith to be operative, and bring forth the fruits of new obedience, prior to our juftification. The righteoufness of God is by faith of Jefus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference, Rom. iii. 22. This is the conftant language of the fcripture, We are juftified by faith; and be that believeth, is not condemned. Therefore as there can be no condemned, no unjustified believer, at any time whatsoever, nor any time at all for either legal or evangelical obedience be

tween the first act of faith and our paffing out of a state of condemnation into a state of juftification, hence our fincere obedience muft be the confequence, and there fore cannot be the condition of our juftification.

Befides, as there can be no fincere obedience antece. dent to our interest in Christ and union to him, it hence appears that our fincere obedience muft neceffarily be the confequence of our juftification; and therefore cannot be the condition of it. I think, every body will al low that man to be in a justified state, who is interested in Chrift, and united to him. Now, our Lord himself affures us, that we cannot bring forth the fruits of new obedience, till we are united to him, John xv. 4, 5• Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: fo no more can ye, except ye abide in me. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the fame bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. Or as it may be rendered, fevered from me ye can bear none, can bring forth no fruit at all. There cannot be a greater folecifm, than to fpeak of a fincerely obedient chriftlefs finner: and therefore there cannot be a greater inconfiftency, than for that to be the condition of our justification, which is the fruit and effect of our intereft in Chrift, and fo the confequence of our justified state.

These, Sir, are fome of the many inconveniencies, that attend this your scheme; which one would think fhould awaken your attention, and make you look well about you, before you venture your eternal interest up. on fuch an unfcriptural and inconsistent foundation.

I proceed now to offer fome objections against the doctrine you propofe. And here one obvious excep tion against this doctrine, is that it perverts the gospel of the grace of God, and makes it properly and strictly a covenant of works. The condition of the covenant of works was this: The man that doth these things fhall live by them, Rom. x. 5. And the condition of our juftification, according to this new fcheme is this: the man that doth these things (i. e. that performs fincere obedience to this new law of grace) ball live by them. Where then is the difference, between the old covenant of works, and this new imaginary law of grace? What gave

denomination to the covenant of works, was, that it required works or obedience as the condition of it. And don't this pretended new law of grace require works or obedience as a covenant-condition; and don't it therefore deserve the denomination of a covenant of works, as much as the other? If we run a parallel between the first covenant and this new law of grace, they will be found in all things to agree, as a covenant of works. Thus, the old covenant of works was a law with fanctions, requiring obedience, as the matter of that righteoufnefs, by which man was to be juftified. And this imaginary new covenant is likewife ftiled a law of grace, which requires fincere obedience, as the condition of our justification. Juftification, according to the tenor of the old covenant of works, was of debt: and thus it is likewife according to the tenor of this pretended new law of grace. An obligation to give a reward for fervice performed, makes it a debt, upon the fervice be⚫ ing performed; and it can be claimed as fuch, whatever proportion there is between the reward and the fervice by which it becomes due. The old covenant of works, although it exacted obedience, yet gave no new ftrength for the performance of it: and thus it is likewife in the prefent cafe. For unless we are united to Chrift, and interested in his righteousness, we can have no fecurity of new fupplies of grace and ftrength as we need them. Whatever pretences to gracious affiftance, the patrons of this new law of grace may make, they do not pretend, that God has by covenant fecured to us fresh fupplies of grace, for perfevering obedience. According to the tenor of the old covenant of works, juftification was fufpended, forfeited and loft, upon the non-performance of the required obedience: And just thus it is likewife according to the tenor of this preten ded new law of grace. I must therefore again demand, wherein this new law does any way differ from a proper covenant of works?

If it be pretended that the conditions of this new covenant are much easier than the conditions of the old covenant of works which required perfect, and this but imperfect obedience, as the term of our acceptance with God; I answer, This supposal would-nothing alter

are

the general nature of the covenant. Works are works, obedience is obedience, whether perfect or imperfect. The condition of each covenant is works; and works come into the very formal nature of each, as they? covenants. And therefore how the one can be either more or less a covenant of works than the other, I know not. Befides, it is a great miftake to fuppofe, that the conditions of this imaginary new law or covenant are eafier, than the conditions of the old covenant of works. The cafe is much otherwife. He with whom the first covenant was made, had fufficient power and ability to fulfil all its conditions, and fully to come up to all its demands. But fallen creatures are utterly incapable to perform fincere, though imperfect, obedience: they have naturally no fincerity, no truth in the inward parts, no principle of new obedience; nor does this pretended covenant fupply them with any, as before observed. And therefore whatever pretences are made, that these conditions are easier, they are indeed rather harder to be complied with, than the conditions of the first covenant. It is more difficult for a man without legs to walk, than for a perfect vigorous lively man to run.

If it be further pretended, that this new law of grace differs from the covenant of works, in that faith is, according to this fcheme, made the principal condition of the new covenant: this is but an empty pretence. For faith is here confidered but as an act of obedience, and as being feminally or virtually all evangelical obedience, including the fame in the nature of it; fo that this faith is nothing else but a conftitutive part and active prin ciple of the works required, and not diftinct from them in the office of justifying. And was not Adam as much obliged by the covenant of works, to act faith in the conditional promife of life, and to fubject himself to the authority of the legiflator, as we can be by this new law of grace? Let the cafe therefore be looked upon in any view, in every view; and this pretended new law or covenant of mild and favourable terms, will be found to be as truly a covenant of works, as the first covenant, made with Adam. There will indeed appear fome cir cumftantial differences, between that covenant and this. For instance, that covenant was appointed and enjoined

by God as a fovereign: whereas this (as is pretended) was purchased by the blood of Chrift, and is the law of a Mediator. That covenant admitted no renovation, when violated: but this leaves room for recovery, upon condition of repentance and future obedience, to fuch tranfgreffors, as do not happen to die in the fad interval of unbelief and infincerity. And that covenant required perfect, this accepts of imperfect obedience. But these things are only circumftances; and enter not into the nature of a covenant condition. From whatever inducement God was pleafed to propose these conditions; whatever be the confequence of their violation; and whatever degree of obedience be required in order to our justification; yet (according to this new divinity) fincere perfevering obedience is the ftated condition of each of these covenants. This, and this only, was what rendered the first covenant a covenant of works : and therefore when all the pretences are made, that can be made, the second covenant, upon this fcheme, is as ftrictly and properly a covenant of works, as the first was. You seem to be aware of this confequence: and therefore demand of me, Why it may not be fuppofed agreeable to the divine perfections, to require of man " a life of obedience now, proportioned to his prefent abilities, as the condition of his juftification, as well as to make with him a covenant of works at first, proportioned to his primitive powers and capacities? To which I anfwer,

·

I have already shewn you, that it is impoffible that any covenant requiring fincere obedience, as the condition of our juftification, can be proportioned to our prefent abilities. For we have no natural ability for any fincere obedience at all. We are dead in trelpaffes and fins, Eph ii. 1. The carnal mind in us is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can be, Rom. viii. 7. But this is what I may have further occafion to inculcate, before I have finished this letter.

I would now only add, that the fcriptures reprefent to us an irreconcilable oppofition, between our being faved by works, and our being faved by the grace revealed in the gospel. I have fhewn you in my laft, how

R