you are come from Cambridge to the help of your pious brother. In the Friendly Remarks that you have directed to me, you say with great truth, page 31, "The principal cause of controversy among us, is the doctrine of a second justification by works. Thus much you vindicate throughout, that a man is justified before the bar of God a second time by his own good works."

So I do, dear sir; and I wonder how any Christian can deny it, when Christ himself declares, “In the day of judgment by thy words shalt thou be justified," &c. Had he said, "By my words imputed to thee thou shalt be justified," you might indeed complain. But now, what reason have you to assert, as you do, that I "have grossly misrepresented the scriptures," and "made universal havoc of every truth of the gospel?" The first of these charges is heavy, the second dreadful: let us see by what arguments they are supported.

After throwing away a good part of your book in passing a long, Calvinian, juvenile sentence upon my spirit as a writer, you come at last to the point, and attempt to explain some of the scriptures, which you suppose I have misrepresented."

I. Page 32. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my father." Matt. vii. 21. "And what is this," say you, more than a description of those that are

to be saved?"

66

What, sir, is it nothing but a description? Is it not a solemn declaration, that no practical antinomian shall be saved by faith in the last day? and that Christ is really a Lord and a King, who has a law, which he will see obeyed? Had he not just before, verse 12, admitted “the law and the prophets" into his gospel dispensation, saying, "All things which ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets?" Are we not under this law to him? And will he not command his subjects, who obstinately violate it, to be brought and slain before him?

Again: when he declares that they who "hate a brother, and call him. Thou fool!' are in danger of hell fire as

murderers," do we not expose his legislative wisdom, as well as his paternal goodness, by intimating, that, without having an eye to the murder of the heart or of the tongue, he only describes certain reprobated wretches, whom he unconditionally designs for everlasting burnings?

What I say of a punishment threatened is equally true of a reward promised; as you may see by the following illustration of our controverted text. A general says to his soldiers, as he leads them to the field of battle, "Not every one that calls me, Your honour, Your honour, shall be made a captain, but he that fights manfully for his king and country." You say, "What is this more than a description of those that shall be promoted?" And I reply, If warlike exploits have absolutely nothing to do with their promotion; and if the general's declaration is only a description of some favourites, whom he is determined to raise at any rate; could he not as well have described them by the colour of their hair, or height of their stature? And does he not put a cheat upon all the soldiers, whom he is absolutely determined not to raise; when he excites them to quit themselves like men, by the fond hope of being raised? Apply this simile to the case in hand, and you will see, dear sir, how frivolous, and injurious to our Lord, is your intimation, that one of his most awful royal proclamations is nothing but an empty description. O Calvinism! is this thy reverence for Jesus Christ? Hast thou no way of supporting thyself, but by turning the Lord of glory into a Virgil? the supreme Lawgiver of men and angels, into a maker of descriptions?

II. Much of the same nature is the observation which you make, page 37, upon these words of our Lord, "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting punishment." You say, "What does this text prove more than has been granted before? What does it more than characterize those that shall be saved?" Nay, sir, it undoubtedly characterizes also those that shall be damned; and this, too, by as essential a character as that according to which the king would appoint some of his servants for a gracious

reward, and others for a capital punishment, if he said to them, " They that serve me faithfully shall be richly provided for; and they that rob me shall be hanged." If such characterizing as this passes at Geneva for a bare description of persons whom royal humour irrespectively singles out for a reward, I hope the time is coming when, at Cambridge, it will pass for a clear declaration of the reason why some are rewarded, or punished, rather than others ; and for a proof, that the king is no more a capricious dispenser of rewards, than a tyrannical inflicter of punishments.

III. Page 33, after mentioning those words of St. Paul, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" and those words which St. James wrote to believers, "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves;" you say, "What is this to the purpose, respecting a second justification? Just about as much as, 'Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah."" Now, sir, although I do not immediately rest the cause upon such scriptures, I maintain, that they are much more to the purpose of our second justification by works, than Moses's definition of

an omer.

"

Will you dare to say, dear sir, that impious Jezebel, and unconverted Manasses, were persons "just about as properly qualified for justification in the great day, because they had "an omer" in their palace, as pious Deborah, and holy Samuel, who had holiness in their hearts, and were doers of the word in their lives? And when the apostle declares that "Christ is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him," does he mean, that to obey is a thing just about as important to eternal salvation, as to know that a bushel holds four pecks, and an ephah ten omers? Were ever holiness and obedience inadvertently set in a more contemptible light? For my part, if "by our words we shall be justified in the day of judgment," I believe it shall be by our words springing from holiness of heart; and therefore I cannot but think that holiness will be more to the purpose of our justification by works in the great day, than all the omers and ephahs, with all the notions about imputed righteousness and finished salvation, in the world.

IV. Page 33, after quoting that capital passage, "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers shall be justified," Rom. ii. 13, you say, "This certainly proves that the doers of the law shall be justified." Well then, it directly proves a justification by works. But you immediately insinuate the "impossibility of salvation by the law." I readily grant, that in the day of conversion, we are "justified by faith," not only without the deeds of the ceremonial law, but even without a previous observance of the law of love; but the case is widely different in the day of judgment; for then "by thy words shalt thou he justified." Now, sir, it remains for you to prove, that the apostle did not speak of the text under consideration, with an eye to our final justification by works.

In order to this, page 33, you appeal to "the place which this text stands in, and the connexion in which the words are found." I answer,

1. This text stands in the epistle to the Romans, to whom the apostle says, "Love is the fulfilling of the law: -He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Rom. xiii. 8, 10. Now, if " he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law," you must show that it is impossible to love another; or acknowledge, that there are persons who fulfil the law. and consequently persons who can be justified as doers of the law. Nay, in the very chapter such persons are thus mentioned: "If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, and fulfil the law, shall it not judge thee who dost transgress the law?" That is, shall not a Cornelius, an honest heathen, that "fears God and works righteousness," rise in judgment against thee who committest adultery; vainly supposing that Abraham's chastity is imputed to thee? Rom. ii. 22, 27. But,

2. Going back to the beginning of the chapter where our controverted text stands, I affirm that "the connexion in which it is found" establishes also justification by works in the great day; and to prove it, I only lay the apostle's words before my judicious readers: "Thou art inexcusable, O Jew, whosoever thou art that judgest, or condemnest, the heathens who do such things, and doest

them thyself. The judgment of God is according to truth," and not according to thy antinomian notions, that thou wast unconditionally elected in Abraham; that thou standest complete in his righteousness; and that thy salvation was finished when he had offered up Isaac. Be not deceived, "God will render to every man according to his deeds," and not according to his notions: "to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for immortality, he will render eternal life: anguish to every man that doeth evil; but glory to every man that worketh good :-For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:-In the day when he shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Rom. ii. 1-16.

Now, sir, is it not evident from "the connexion" to which you appeal, that Mr. Henry did not pervert the text, when he had the courage to say upon it, "It is not hearing, but doing, that will save us" in the great day? Hearing mixed with faith saves us indeed instrumentally in the day of conversion; but in the day of judgment neither hearing nor faith will do it, but "patient continuance in well-doing,” from the principle of a living faith in Christ, will have that honour.

V. Page 34, after criticising in the same frivolous manner as your brother, on Rev. xxii. 14, "Blessed are they that keep his commandments," &c., you add, “This is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ;" and, omitting what immediately follows, "and love one another, as he gave us commandment;" you ask, "What then is the conclusion? To believe is the great New Testament command of God." No, sir, according to 1 John iii. 23, the text you have quoted by halves, that commandment is to believe and to love, or to believe with a "faith working by love." Our Lord informs us, that " on the grand commandment of love, hang all the law and the prophets." St. Paul says, 66 Though I have all faith, yet if I have not love, I am nothing." "Devils believe," says St. James. To believe then, without loving, is not doing God's commandments, but doing the devil's work. Besides the word